Capital Punishment - Amnesty's Strawman arguments

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html

In opposing the death penalty, isn't Amnesty International showing disrespect for victims of violent crime and their relatives?
In opposing the death penalty, Amnesty International in no way seeks to minimize or condone the crimes for which those sentenced to death were convicted. If it were, then a majority of countries are currently apologists for violent crime, clearly a nonsensical suggestion. As an organization deeply concerned with the victims of human rights abuses, Amnesty International does not seek to belittle the suffering of the families of murder victims, for whom it has the greatest sympathy. However, the finality and cruelty inherent in the death penalty render it incompatible with norms of modern-day, civilized behaviour. It is an inappropriate and unacceptable response to violent crime.

AI claims it does not seek to minimise or condone the crimes, but AI chooses to say nothing about what message it wants to give to the victims.

If it were, then a majority of countries are currently apologists for violent crime, clearly a nonsensical suggestion.
Logical Fallacies here.
First, being lenient on violent criminal does not necessarily one is an apologist for violent crime.

Second, it is a bald assertion without any proof whatsoever that countries which do so much to protect criminals relative to how much they have done to protect the victims before the crimes were commited, and how much they do for the victims after the crimes were commited, must also not be apologists for violent crimes.

Isn't it necessary to execute certain prisoners in order to prevent them from repeating their crimes?
The death penalty as a method of preventing prisoners from re-offending is a blunt tool. By its very nature, the death penalty can only be carried out against a prisoner who is already imprisoned and therefore removed from society. Since that prisoner can no longer commit acts of violence against society, the death penalty is not needed as a method of protection.

Who can guarantee that once imprisoned, these criminals can no longer hurt members of society, both inside the prison and outside the prison?

Even the mere knowledge that the killer of their loved ones is alive while their loved one is gone is hurtful. Killers can still taunt the victims' families - e.g., through letters, or through interviews, exclusives with media.

They can escape. Or they can get paroled.

Will any AI or anti-capital punishment advocate be willing to guarantee with his/her life that the criminal will not hurt anyone else EVER?


Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who are innocent will be executed. The death penalty will not prevent them from repeating a crime which they did not commit in the first place.

Judicial error is a separate issue. It is no more acceptable to allow it in the case of other punishments as it is in the case of capital punishments.

If the country's judiciary is prone to making mistakes in making wrong convictions, that's where the fix should be directed at.

...

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.

Again, this is like trying to prescribe a cure for swollen ankle for someone who does not have a swollen ankle but a cut on the head - prescription does not fit the diagnosis.

No one should be wrongfully convicted of whatever crimes just because they do not have money to hire skilled lawyers.

Convictions should be a matter of evidence, not a matter of harshness or prosecutor or judges.

Countries where the rich get off from crimes, be it violent or non-violent, by being able to afford expensive lawyers, while the poor does not get their due rights in the courts, are countries which trample on human rights.