Human beings do not have the right to take a life for a good reason.
They don't know how to judge objectively and scientifically.
Before a person is put to death, that person is in the hands of dozens of middle-class or worse, rich folk with college degrees. They cannot afford to just back the right side. They may be losing their cushy careers in the process. In these days when an expensive car far outclasses something boring like integrity, it is impossible to care about the victim of the Death Penalty who may be innocent. They* get bad MARKS AGAINST them when they do not win a case.
How insane is that?
* the entitled Officers of the Courts, et. al
I think you bring up a good point in an awkward way.
As you note, among the MANY flaws in our Best Justice System Money Can Buy is the problem of self-interest and motivated judgement. For example, an assistant prosecutor might allow a plea deal in a murder case where the victim was relatively anonymous, yet pursue the maximum possible penalty in a case with a high-profile victim, because being seen as "tough on crime" is high-publicity case is good for future political aspirations.
Unfortunately, I think your appeal to reject the death penalty on the basis that justice conflicts with the self-interest of Rich White Professionals will largely fall on deaf ears. Most people are sympathetic to Rich White Professionals, especially RWPs they perceive as protecting them from criminals.
You are, in my view, offering a reasonably valid argument, but one that won't gather much sympathy for your position.
If I may offer a parallel, there is evidence that law enforcement (for various reasons) is abusive to the African-American community. If you offer up the argument, "Cops are being bad. They need to stop being bad", you will be met with resistance from people who don't wish to believe Cops are Bad.
However, if you come from the position "Cops are blowing kids faces of with flash-bang grenades. They need to stop doing that", you are more likely to get someone to admit, "Yes, that's wrong. How do we get cops to stop doing such things?"
Of course, I've discussed the death penalty for years with many people, and I've had very little success in convincing supporters of it to move towards my position. I suspect it is a very strong case of motivated cognition (i.e. people have an emotional attachment to their beliefs and will not be moved by evidence).
What did you do now?
Did you violate that rule that says that you should never do anything that places your future fate in the hands of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty and are now afraid of what's about to happen to you?
As to the death penalty . . . I agree that it should be "reserved" for those very special cases where it's beyond all doubt (not just reasonable) that someone had repeatedly committed capital or other offenses. And that's only because we are imperfect and prosecutors have no standard to be judged by. (They can literally get away with murder.)
But what do you propose we do with such offenders? I think keeping them in a 10-foot x 12-foot concrete box or steel cage or in a padded cell with 0 hope of reform or mental repair is cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention the onerous financial cost to "society". Makes a relatively quick and painless death for them look much more humane.
Hmmm...let me check.
Nope, Hell didn't freeze over....;-D...
https://www.wunderground.com/us/mi/hell
Nevertheless, you and I are largely in agreement. After changing my mind on the subject several times in my life, I have settled upon the following compromise position:
I am against the death penalty, but I don't see it as inherently less humane than locking someone up in a cage for decades on end. However, to prevent the inevitable disproproptionate and unjust application of it upon poor/urban/ethnic people (because they can't afford The Best Justice System Money Can Buy), anyone facing the death penalty gets the equivalent of O.J. Simpson's legal defense team at taxpayer expense. It's not foolproof, but it's as close as we can come to minimizing procedural problems.
My rant? It was a great point and contrary to your opine, I don't see one thing awkward about it.
All you are doing from my perspective, is saying what I said. Almost. I don't think my way of explaining the situation equates to your example of me with the 'cops are bad'. I think I made a clear unawkward statement.
Anywho, I was watching case after case this morning of innocent people being put to death because of Texas law being what it is. The deaths were OF COURSE in Texas. The reasons for these deaths were because anyone that does not follow the dictates of that Texas court system, finds themselves unemployed. Or worse, Scapegoats of a cover-up of some sort. The zealotry is deep in that state regarding punishment of crime. Too bad they don't know who to punish half the time.
So, say it is in my best interest as an ambitious Chief Prosecuting Attorney to prosecute Joe Blow, poor murder suspect,. It is in my best interest career-wise to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law when I know he is being railroaded and justice will not prevail. I need to have that conviction on my record when voting time comes round. Lord knows, we Texans love our government to be tough on criminals. So, that is what I mean by human beings cannot be trusted to tell the truth when someone else is the victim of their lies. As long as they don't get in trouble and they do get ahead.
You are right, it is awkward. I tried.
Salt. That is what I think too. But I am not interested in punishing anyone. I am interested in isolating them up to a point and causing them to not escape. I don't think they should be treated any worse than a typical pampered pet. They need food that will not kill them. They need clean water. Clean area to live. Small, confined and allowing for some introspection without them feeling like there is so much noise and temperature misery that they cannot help but go even more insane.
They need to be isolated for the most part. They need to have access to only certain types of reading materials. They do not need to be tortured. They need to be securely housed where they can do no further damage. Period.
Science has vindicated too many innocent convicts for us to be executing people.
@DJAM-RONA -- Perhaps I didn't emphasize enough that your point IS valid and germane to discussions on the death penalty.
My counter-point (which I expressed in my usual long-winded tentative way) is, if your goal is to reduce/elminate application of the death penalty, arguing that it's unfair, because somtimes its application is more about the careers of Rich White Legal Professionals/Politicians than Justice, will not further the goal very much, because that argument is not emotionally resonant for many people.
If you base your opposition on the injustice of innocent people being put to death (because of the imperfections of the system, including the career goals of RWLPs) or the injustice of poor/disadvantaged people being put to death far more than rich/privileged people, you might have greater rhetorical success.
Or not. As I noted, I think the arguments against the death penalty on the basis of systemic unfairness are strong (both from principles and from empirical data), yet a large plurality of Americans are unmoved by those arguments.
Old. You said awkward. We would have been just fine had you not said awkward. Hegemony - good. Awkward - no good.
You did a great job. Honest. 
I don't understand what the rush to punishment is. I never did. I don't want to coddle criminals either. But it helps to err on the side of caution. If someone is locked up for good, that should be enough. It doesn't have to be in the bowels of hell either. Just isolate them and keep them quiet and reasonably comfortable and good riddance to their affect on society. They don't need a ton of "rights". They need to be kept at bay. Simple enough.
Totally agree. I also think for some, rehabilitation is actually effective. I know a fella who spent more than a decade in prison for manslaughter. Long story short, the man he killed took his brother's life while he watched on, yet got away free and clear. Years later they crossed paths, fought, he hit the guy with a blunt object and the man died instantly. He pled guilty and he has told me it was never his intent to kill the man, just an unbelievable mess of happenstance. He isn't proud of it, nor did he feel happy or even justified because of it.
He served his time, got out early with good behavior and after years of drinking and drugging, he's now a drug-rehabilitation councilor who tries to keep others from living the same mistakes he's made. He's been on the straight and narrow for over a decade. The ultimate turn of the tables, a couple of years ago, one of his patients was a judge who actually heard one of his many past legal cases. The judge got stopped for drinking and driving, he was sentenced to rehabilitation. Now isn't that something?
Life is amazing sometimes. You just never know how much time can change a person, yeah?
I agree but different rationale, which is quite simple. People make mistakes. Juries can be made up of imbeciles who do not understand evidence. Juries can and do get it wrong. Until and unless we can improve the quality of juries (no imbeciles, felons, or people without high school equivalent education) there should be no death penalty. This is part of the argument for paid professional juries. I don't go for that because of possibility of corruption. And really, I simply feel that we do not have the right to systematically take a life like that. We do have the right to keep those unfit for society out of society.
Also, it is just barbaric. I'm sure you've seen the bumper sticker that says something like Killing people to prove that killing people is wrong, is wrong.
YES
@DJAM -- There are documentaries on the Internet (e.g. YouTube) which show typical prison conditions in European countries. It's almost surreal in comparison to the typical American understanding of what "prison" is.
The documentary I watched (which was about a prison in Denmark, IIRC) showed a facility which was basically like a trailer park. Prisoners had their individual trailer-like housing units. Some of them were married and lived in the trailers with their spouses. They cooked their own food, washed their own clothes, etc. They just were never allowed to leave the "trailer park" (enforced by fences, sensors, guards, etc.)
Can you imagine the political/public outrage if such a facility was propoed in America?
Hey, Hell has frozen over twice today!...;-D...
While I don't necessarily agree with your point about professional juries (I haven't thought about it much so I'm not sure what my stance is), I think the Number One Argument Against the Death Penalty is the falliablity of the people (jurors, judges, attorneys, investigators, etc.) in the system. Given their imperfections, I am reluctant to grant the system they make up irrevocable power over life and death. If they get it wrong and someone is wrongly imprisoned, that's bad. If they get it wrong and someone is executed, that's extra bad and cannot be undone.
Well, that is fine if the person is not a maniac.
What about maniacs OLD? Surely there must be horror stories. I am not talking about digressions like writing bad checks or being a bigamist.
What about pedophilia? What about killers? Wife beaters? Rapists? Are they in a trailer park? I would rather be locked up away from that possibility. I wonder how that works. 
I think they get it wrong a LOT.
Not only the death sentence but many sentences. If the jury doesn't GET it, the person is toast or free.
I am reminded of the Casey Anthony trial. I get the chills just remembering that travesty.
To Sharona and OS . . . .
Actually, aside from those that kill for fun and/or profit, most murders will apparently not be repeat offenders. Check out a book titled "The Murderer Next Door, Why the Mind is Designed to Kill. by David M. Buss.
My kids read it as part of their Soc studies at college. I found it to be an interesting and unbiased (I think it was unbiased, but you can never be sure) look at one particular capital offense; changed my viewpoint to a fair degree. Your local library should have a copy, no need to fork out the coin, unless you really like it.
@DJAM -- I don't remember all the details of the documentary. But some of the people in the "trailer park" prison were incarcerated for fairly serious/violent crimes (I'm pretty sure at least one murder convict).
While I don't remember the documentary explicitly covering it, I am sure there are other Danish prisons for people who cannot live peacefully in a "trailer park."
OTOH, it seems to me the "trailer park" is very much what you were advocating above. Under what conditions do you think a disturbed/anti-social person is more likely to be peaceful and cooperative? Living in his own trailer in a trailer park where he has some privacy and a decent level of comfort? Or warehoused in a 6' x 10' room with another similarly disturbed individual and constantly forced to interact with similarly disturbed or even more disturbed individuals in communal eating facilities, bathing facilities, etc.?
Of course, the trailer park is not enough "punishment" for most Americans' tastes, so public support for such a system would be very low.
@DJAM -- I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, the empirical evidence suggests The System does get it wrong a lot (for a variety of reasons). On the other hand, on the one criminal jury I served on, I was amazed by the experience. Everyone involved in the case was extremely professional, serious, empathetic, fair, and performed their roles to the best of their abilities (possible exception: the defense attorney, but he was stuck with a weak case).
Of course, we were all a bunch of relatively affluent, fairly highly educated (ahem!) White people from the low crime cities of Orange County, CA. We probably were not very representative of criminal trials in general. I just hope if I'm ever falsely accused of a crime, I end up in a courtroom like the one I served as a juror in (although in the case I served on, the jury did find the defendant guilty).
It probably IS true. However, it probably is also true that a great enough number of people do kill more than once in a lifetime cannot be dismissed out of hand either.
That books sounds MOST interesting. I am serious. I am so deluged with school right now, that I will have to put it on the back burner, but it is my kind of book.
Thanks Mr. Salt
Old, I am totally for this kind of thing if it works. I am certain it must work well enough since it is in play in a very sensible area, Denmark. I like the Danish sensibilities as a rule. So, I am not arguing that point, but rather wondering what a Charlie Manson would do if left in a trailer park.
But you answered it. There are stricter confines for those who do not earn the kind of trust that allows for trailer park living.
So, yes, I am indeed all for this kind of thing. 
Old, when the jury is comprised of objective, educated and reasonably sophisticated individuals, it can be like a beautiful work of art. But, that is seldom the case.
I don't know if you recall my bringing up my Court Reporting experiences in Chicago, but my friends and I had a multitude of stories concerning all things wrong with the Court system, from graft and total corruption, to just bad judgment concerning a sentence for a poor person unable to defend himself properly, due to being poor and getting ground up like hamburger in the court system.
So, I am of the same two minds as you, I guess. The court system is designed to work beautifully, but because of too many cooks ruining the formula, the cake gets screwed up easy enough due to ego and agendas. Plain and simple. (really bad mixed-metaphor)
