Why do we consider the death penalty immoral in a situation where a sadist (a

Why do we consider the death penalty immoral in a situation where a sadist (a

Why do we consider the death penalty immoral in a situation where a sadist (a very immoral person) commits heinous crimes and is sentenced to life imprisonment where he is protected from lynch mobs, given access to education, therapy (which has proved not only to be non effective in rehabilitating sadists but frees them from responsibility for their actions), medical care, food, clothing, televison, gym, etc. all at the taxpayers expense and one of his victims (a child) who has survived the trauma and torture inflicted is sentenced to a life of physical and psychological disability, in later life unable to work or pay for his ailments and who lives in constant fear that the sadist will be released and come and get him again? Is it possible that our reluctance to inflict the death penalty is out of fear but that we simply rationalize this as morality as that is the more palatable excuse. Are we just moral cowards? Wouldn't we all be relieved if the sadist suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack? And if yes, does this not mean that our concern is not about his life which we obviously do not value at all but of our own fear of doing a scary thing, i.e., inflicting the death penalty?

Read another response by Mitch Green
Read another response about Death, Punishment
Print