Can the death penalty be morally justifiable IF it is used,

as in the Linnik murder case, to save a life?

In a recent child murder case here in Seattle, the prosecutor agreed to take the death penalty off the table IF the then-suspect led them to where he left the child. The hope, of course, was that she might have been discovered to be alive. In other words, the suspect led them to her body in order to avoid the death penalty.

Linnik had died from a blow to the head, but if that blow had not killed her, the police were hoping to be able to rescue her in time. Without the death penalty to motivate him, the suspect surely wouldn't have cooperated and critical time would have been lost.

I'm a death penalty opponent, but I'm having to ask myself this question now. Is the Linnik case a valid argument for having a death penalty? That in certain circumstances it could actually prevent a death?

might get a person to confess where they have hidden someone away?

Keep your opposition, there is no moral justification for the death penalty.

The ends do not justify the means.

The prosecutor had no way of knowing.

of other girls.

If you are now for it because he tortured a 12 year old girl, so be it and just say so, but I don't see how you can start using it as a "tool" to interrogate people and call it morally correct.

I'm teetering on the edge.

We have a rather exceptional case, and there is nothing saying the result would have been different without the death penalty - if the max sentence was a life term, a reduction in that could have gotten that girl's body recovered as well.

The idea is also open to abuse. Someone who would kill a child certainly isn't going to be above trying to use such a loophole to squirm out of punishment.

I have yet to settle in my mind, what is the worst punishment, life in prison or the death penalty. Certainly life is best when DNA proves that a prisoner is innocent, but for those guilty which is the worst penalty. A 22 year old handsome verile male from a rich family convicted of murdering his girlfriend?? What would be the tougher punishment on him, life in a hellhole like Angola Prison in Louisiana or the Death Penalty.

We are all going to die, and it is no penalty that that is so. The problem is to ensure that is it applied properly, since there is no chance of redress, and that it is not applied for political reasons, but only where it is appropriate as a punishment and a deterrent for crimes against ones fellow citizens.

The penalty has not worked. It only serves to provide revenge, a bitter, bitter reward.

or for high elected officials who commit treasonous acts and war crimes and get thousands of our kids killed by their incompetence and corruption and wipe their ass with the constitution. Otherwise I'd be hard put to justify it.

get convicted. There's nothing worse than killing innocent people. At least if they're in jail, there's some hope of exoneration. As far as killing actual murderers, I don't really have a problem with that. But the reality that some innocent people do and always will be convicted makes the death penalty a no-no for me.

Almost murdered victims saved by plea deal occurs far more often in hypothetical arguments than in reality.

The number of innocent people killed by judicial murder is unacceptable in any civil society.

Is torture morally justified if it is used to save lives?

to try and remove all evidence, thereby avoiding the death penalty.
I would say this situation is more prevalent.
Which means that the possibility of capital punishment causes more murders.
State sanctioned murder only serves to degrade society.

Look at our crime statistics, and then, as the only industrialized western nation with the death penalty explain how it has helped. There is no there there. The death penalty has not stopped our murder rate.

that must sometimes be used in the blink of an eye, that we would have such a problem with the deliberative process that is an American trial.

I'm not saying I approve of it, I'm just pointing out that odd fact.