Ethics of the death penalty, who is served?

Ok, What interest were served ? First Justice., 2nd answer, No, Not as Painful, the ending of the Life is sufficient, Public Place ? Hmm Perhaps, But there is Nothing Horrifying about watching a man simply Close his eyes and Go to sleep.

A Convicted Criminal's Interest are non-existent and cannot be served, he gave up that right when he committed murder and since he or she knows the laws concerning the penalty of Murder ? they do so willingly and with Ful knowledge that they will lose all rights and interest.

In the last part of your question, only the interest of the State and the Victims families interest are to be served, NOT the Convict, that was Forfeited by the convict on his own, as for sensible answers?

That is a matter of Opinion and or opinions, Now as far as a Scriptural Biblical answer is Concerned, First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.

Second, we must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes.

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

By: Francis J. Beckwith, Gregory Koukl

http://www.christianbook.com/relativism-feet-firml...

It's usually the victim's friends and family who get something out of an execution. Obviously, they want the perpetrator to suffer. Still, there is an argument that the state is served too, after all a convicted murderer has been permanently removed from their midst. The problem is, no justice system is watertight and just because you've been convicted does not mean you did it.

Personally, I believe that it's wrong to show that killing people is wrong by killing people. If it were a true deterrent, there would be no more murder or very little. And still, there is murder. And until there is a justice system that is watertight, not influenced by emotion or anything else other than cold, hard facts, I simply do not see how the death penalty is justified.

The interests served are those of retribution and revenge. And they have prevented some people from taking a look at the death penalty in action.

The worst thing about it. Errors:

The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission has determined that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people who were sentenced to death have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in the Willingham case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:

Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:

-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison

-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a surprise to many people:

Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, with the largest costs at the pre-trial and trial stages. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. There are tremendous expenses in a death penalty case whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):

The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people who lack a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.

Who gets it:

Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??

Victims:

People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It just isn't so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

I do not believe it is ethical to keep a system for the sake of retribution or revenge even though it isn’t effective in reducing violent crime, costs much more than alternatives and, worst of all, can lead to the nightmare of executing someone for a crime he didn’t commit.

Death penalty serves the interest of the state the most. THEN they'll "take into consideration" the victims families. As executions in a public place, it would make them targets for militant objectors. All the "security" in the world can't stop some determined people.

The simple answer is that there is NO recidivism from lethal injection.

If I had control of it, I would use it just like that. No revenge, no rehabilitation, no deterrent (because deterrent doesn't work). People sentenced to life without parole right now are usually cheaper to keep, when all the legal moves to save a life are considered. But those whose crimes were so egregious that they should never have a chance of repeating would be gone in three days or less.

But I would not do that until our justice system is a little more just. I might agree with death in theory, but I have seen too many bum raps.

Any sentence should serve the interests of society by helping to minimise the overall level of crime.

US states that have the death penalty tend to have higher murder rates than those which do not.

And death penalty sentences tend to cost more than life imprisonment sentences.

Who is served by the death penalty? Not society.

A key part is recidivision. Even someone sentenced to life in prison can escape and kill more people.

The last person to come back after a property executed death sentence did so two thousand years ago.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE,

A DETERRENT FOR FUTURE CRIMES.