Tabla a analizar

la pagina http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect26.htm, da los siguentes argumentos en contra y a favor de la pena de muerte:

PRO-DEATH PENALTY:	CON-DEATH PENALTY:
the MORAL MATURITY & FAIRNESS arguments: the law only requires premeditation & malice, not philosophical reflection, so there shouldn't be any restrictions on age, etc. It's what the offender deserves; i.e., just deserts, regardless of whatever other people may have escaped justice.	Juveniles and other protected classes have not formed the moral maturity of truly guilty offenders; they are coping the best they can; we don't let juveniles, e.g., buy beer or cigarettes, so why should we execute them? It would be freakish, arbitrary & capricious.
the DETERRENCE argument: It doesn't deter only because the punishment isn't swift enough. The average stay on death row is 11 years 2 months.	It doesn't deter. Prof. Ehrlich's evidence that every execution prevents another 8 lives was repudiated by Brian Forst's research.
the COST argument: Economic considerations should be second to justice considerations. It doesn't matter how much it costs, but it's cheaper than life. Look at the cost ($50,000-100,000) to build a cell and the cost ($20,000-30,000) to incarcerate just one lifer.	The death penalty, because it involves so many required post-trial hearings, reviews, appeals, etc. ends up costing more than life imprisonment, to the order of 6 times the cost of incarceration.
the MISTAKE argument: Any mistakes made are only a small percentage of the total, something like only 0.33 of 1%; errors are very rare; nearly every human endeavor worth taking may cost the lives of innocent people.	It's irreversible. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century alone. Anything that involved even one error like this is unacceptable.

the RACIST argument: Data shows that, despite black-on-black crime, blacks are still more than ten times more likely to murder a white; the guilt is personal anyway; besides, 57% of the people on death row are whites.	It's racist, and the statistics show it. Two-thirds of any case involving a black or hispanic killing a white result in the death penalty. Overall, a black person is 5 times more likely to get the death penalty.
the INCAPACITATION argument: Rehabilitation is at best uncertain, and in any event, is not a right. What we need is a guarantee of no repeat crime.	The death penalty precludes the opportunity for rehabilitation, repair, redemption, & restoration.
the BRUTALIZATION argument: Steven Stack's research shows no brutalization. In fact, it shows that crime goes down after an execution. If done professionally, it's the punishment per se that's proportionate, not how many times or how.	Executions add to the glorification of violence that exists already too much in our society. It dehumanizes us; it legitimates murder; it leads to the loss of civilized society. The methods we use are ghastly.
the HUMAN RIGHTS argument: Countries with little or no crime have the death penalty (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Barbado, Bangladesh)	the U.N. and Amnesty International oppose the death penalty. International law prohibits it. Civilized countries don't have it. Even China and the former Soviet states are abolishing it. All humans have an inherent right to dignity and life.

the RELIGIOUS argument: the Old Testament tells us that vengeance is important and that justice involves an "eye for an eye".	The New Testament tells us that we should not play God, and that we should follow Jesus' example and show mercy.