Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

[RandFan]

I was watching a program on Ted Bundy, an American serial killer last night and I was contemplating this issue. I was really glad Ted died. He was a sadistic monster.

I'm torn. I would count my self pro-death penalty but I have a number of reservations. I don't like that the penalty is administered unevenly. Rich people will rarely die at the hands of society. We seem far more willing to execute minorities than whites, men more than women (yes, I get that these individuals commit crime disproportionately). The fact that the state could kill an innocent person is troubling. I can only imagine the nightmare I would experience as an innocent person sentenced to die. But then we make many decision that directly cause the death of innocent people. That does not make the death penalty ok but one must ask if sparing life must always be the primary consideration of any government decision?

 

[varwoche]

the 25 years are not reverseable either. A few bucks? Whoopee...

That seems a bit glib. Even though the years can't be paid back, the prisoners who have their convictions overturned based on DNA evidence seem pretty darn happy about it and so do their families.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why do you startoff your post with this thinly veiled emotional appeal?

It's neither thinly veiled, or an emotional appeal.

It is sanctioned, and it is murder.

 

[Cleopatra]

I am against death penalty. Murder is not an acceptable practice under any circumstances. Death penatly is irreversible and I consider imprisonment for life the worse possible thing that can happen to a human being.

 

[CFLarsen]

I trust others with taking human life. I trust the army if we are invaded, the police if there is a severe criminal attack, and so forth.

We are not talking about war or a riot. We are talking about punishment of criminals.

Furthermore, the death penalty is part of the criminal law sphere.

That depends entirely on where you are. According to Amnesty International, there are 74 countries still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. Those are:

Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, People's Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

The US is the only one country in the western civilization that has the death penalty.

Source

It is perfectly consistent for a fan of limited government to approve of death as a punishment for murder while objecting to government involving itself in other matters. Fighting violent crime is beyond question a legitimate governent function. Other government acts may not be.

But the death penalty is not merely for violent criminals. It is also for these crimes, in these states:

Arkansas. Treason.

California. Train wrecking; treason; Perjury causing execution.

Colorado. Treason.

Florida. Capital drug trafficking.

Georgia. Treason.

Louisiana. Treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).

Mississippi. Aircraft piracy (97-25-55(1) MCA).

Source

I assume that you don't think there should be death penalty for treason, drug trafficking or aircraft piracy?

No it doesn't. Could be that the first person cannot be rehabilitated and poses a great danger even in prison, while the second is less dangerous. Would "justice" require that these people be punished the same, or is it OK with you if we consider the whole set of circumstances?

You cannot change the premises of my point and then declare that I am wrong. Read what I wrote: "Committing the same crime". The same circumstances. Surely, you are not going to claim that two exact cases are always dealt with the exact same way?

Part of the idea of allowing a government to punish is to remove the need for lynch mobs. Your point may point to more procedural safeguards, but it doesn't really argue against the punishment itself.

Sacco & Vanzetti. The Rosenbergs. No lynch mob mentality, even at state level?

"Some form of compensation?" Again, the 25 years are not reverseable either. A few bucks? Whoopee...

Like I said, it's not perfect. But it's not irreversible either, as the death sentence is.

That a principle appears in the bible is hardly evidence that the principle is somehow primitive and wrong.

Nevertheless, "an eye for an eye" is the basis of the death penalty. Today, humanity has progressed a bit further than than. Well, some parts of it.

Lets see... you claim an eye for an eye is primitive, but then go on to hope that people are raped.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out what happens in prisons, as an example of it not being a very nice life.

Never mind that the person might be innocent or be the one that winds up raping the innocent and having a good time...

But you think it is OK to kill that innocent person? That's what I mean when I say it is contradictory.

Somebody has to be the Bubba for you and people like you to happily suggest that rape is a legitimate part of the punishement. Here's a clue... it usually has nothing to do with the magnitude of the crime... if anything it seems reasonable to speculate that the worse the crime the more likely the prisoner will be getting the better half of the rape deal.

Advocating for any kind of rape is reprehensible behavior.

But since they might get a few bucks if it turns out they are innocent I guess it is all just wonderful, eh?

Since I am not advocating that, it isn't relevant for me to respond. However, I am glad that we agree that life in prison is not nice.

Perhaps, but so what? People don't like for animals to die and then go eat a burger. There are other reasons for the death penalty besides detterence, such as removing a future danger. Merely pointing out that as applied one facet of our system (lack of grusomeness) doesn't seem to further that one reason(detterence) isn't really persuasive.

"So what"? If the death penalty isn't meant to be a deterrent, then it is only a means for revenge. Not justice.

That's primitive.

 

[Suddenly]

That seems a bit glib. Even though the years can't be paid back, the prisoners who have their convictions overturned based on DNA evidence seem pretty darn happy about it and so do their families.

Yipee!! They said they were wrong!! Now I feel better about Claus wanting bubba to bend me over for the better part of my life!!!

Yeah, it's glib. That's not to say they aren't happy to be out, but one of my pet peeves about the legal system is that while death penalty cases are examined over and over (or at least they say), you can wind up in jail forever with no hope of parole and no further review after a shockingly small review of your case.... In fact, here you could be gone based only on the legal decison of a single judge...

The government will make mistakes, and those mistakes will not be reverseable... To suggest that a few bucks and an apology makes up for a wrongful conviction is what really seems glib to me...

 

[Ladewig]

So anyone other than President Bush (or more precisely former Govenor Bush) want to defend the death penalty for mentally-retarded individuals or for people who are under 18 when they commit a crime?

Countries which execute minors:
Pakistan,
China,
Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Iran,
United States

So if you are against the death penalty, why don't you support your position with truthful statements, instead of blatant lies?

O.K.
Truthful statement #1: While Bush was govenor of Texas, mentally retarded people were executed. citation:Amnesty International

Truthful statement #2: While Bush was govenor of Texas, people who committed crimes before they turned 18 were executed. citation:Amnesty International

Correction: I should have described the U.S. not as a country that executes minors - I should have described it as a country that executes people who were minors when they committed their crimes.

If you believe this post involves blatant lying, feel free to point it out.

 

[Suddenly]

We are not talking about war or a riot. We are talking about punishment of criminals.

That point was w/r/t trust and government. I trust them in these othere spheres, why not this one?

So, limiting it to that arena your point was we don't trust the govt to kill people as punishment because we don't trust them to kill people as punishment? Savvy....

That depends entirely on where you are. According to Amnesty International, there are 74 countries still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. Those are:

If the issue of the death penalty is not a criminal justice issue, what is it then? A contract issue? Enviromental regulation? That was the point, but that is a nice appeal to popularity you spun there as a misdirection...

Is punishment of criminals a legitimate function of a government, yes or no?

But the death penalty is not merely for violent criminals. It is also for these crimes, in these states:

That is just weak. Airline piracy isn't violent? You may want to look as to the definitions of some of those crimes... Treason is a whole different issue altogether...

Plus there is an "as applied" problem. Can you point to one person executed in the modern U.S. era (since the DP was re-established in the early '80s) that didn't involve violence?

You cannot change the premises of my point and then declare that I am wrong. Read what I wrote: "Committing the same crime". The same circumstances. Surely, you are not going to claim that two exact cases are always dealt with the exact same way?

There never are exact cases, so you might as well argue that all snowflakes are different as well. Totally hypothetical and useless point.

Sacco & Vanzetti. The Rosenbergs. No lynch mob mentality, even at state level?

Those are pretty old cases, but again, these pointed towards the need for better procedural safeguards, not abolition. This may have been in your opinion a "lynch mob mentality," but this wasn't a lynch mob. These people were tried and convicted by due process of law as it existed at the time.

No system is perfect and they are refined as the need is apparent.

Like I said, it's not perfect. But it's not irreversible either, as the death sentence is.

Sorry. You do not get the time back. You don't get to forget being sexually abused because some people who should know better are amused by your torment.

You do not get it back. Unless you think Jeebus and his Dad are going to cut him a break...

Nevertheless, "an eye for an eye" is the basis of the death penalty. Today, humanity has progressed a bit further than than. Well, some parts of it.

Apparently not the parts that approve of rape in prisons.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out what happens in prisons, as an example of it not being a very nice life.

Sorry. You made light of rape in order to support your contention to keep 'em alive so that they suffer rape.

People who wink at this sort of thing need to take a long hard look in the mirror before they suggest that others are barbaric.

But you think it is OK to kill that innocent person? That's what I mean when I say it is contradictory.

No. No punishment is desireable or OK for an innocent. But to suggest that the horror of long term wrongful imprisonment can be brushed off is daft. Especially when in your next point you dwell on the horrors of said imprisonment.

Since I am not advocating that, it isn't relevant for me to respond. However, I am glad that we agree that life in prison is not nice.

B.S. You are claiming that prison reverseable. You are also somehow claim it is better because it is worse than death for some. Who are you trying to kid?

"So what"? If the death penalty isn't meant to be a deterrent, then it is only a means for revenge. Not justice.

That would imply that the only purposes of criminal sanctions are detterence and revenge. This seems obviously wrong.

Criminal punishment has several purposes. Some obvious ones:

1) To deter crime
2) To rehabilitate the criminal
3) To remove the criminal from society for the safety of society
4) Revenge/retribution

First, the painless and private way these executions are carriied out have not been shown by you to decrease the detterence aspect, but I'm feeling nice and just giving you that even though I suspect it is a load of crap....

(2)Is not served w/r/t the death penalty, except for serious religious types..

But (3) is a huge issue. A dead guy is never going to harm anyone. No escape from that jail...

I'm also not going to disregard (4). I'm not a big fan of it, but there is something to be said for making the guilty suffer, as you appealed to with your rape comments....

Plus, there is a bit of (3) and (4) that seems to apply with great force to the family of a murder victim...

That's primitive.

So's the desire to eat and have sex. Your point?

People desire revenge. Get over it. Better that the revenge take place in an orderly fashion as possible rather than a lynch mob, which is part of the point of government...

 

[varwoche]

The government will make mistakes, and those mistakes will not be reverseable... To suggest that a few bucks and an apology makes up for a wrongful conviction is what really seems glib to me...

No argument -- I'm not referring to the compensation or apology. My .02 involves the aspect of reversal that allows an innocent person to live the remainder of their life as a free person.

 

[Suddenly]

No argument -- I'm not referring to the compensation or apology. My .02 involves the aspect of reversal that allows an innocent person to live the remainder of their life as a free person.

Well... I'm not trying to say the two are equal.

As a general point, the level of due process afforded an accused should be proportional to the magnitude of the punishment.

This is not a static equation, rather different societies are going to have different ideas as to the value of a life and to what level of due process they can afford to give and so on.

I'm of the opinion that as of right now in the western world, that we have reached a level of prosperity that we greatly value life and thus should have an extremely high level of due process before it is taken away, and furthermore as a matter of sheer math that the because of this the death penalty is not economically viable as the expense of having an acceptable system far outstrips the potential benefits...

But that is just an opinion....

An offshoot of that is my problem that while we seem to be grasping the above w/r/t the death penalty, we don't seem to care much about life sentences based on some weird sense that we are immortal and the thing can be overturned, forgetting that overturning a life sentence is difficult because of that very lack of due process so the reason for not worrying so much about it becomes the reason to worry about it...

 

[sackett]

Here’s a question about the death penalty that doesn’t get as much discussion as it should: What does the death penalty do to the people who condone it and see it carried out?

This business of irreversibility is of at least as much concern to us honest people as it is to the convicts. Imagine yourself the governor of a U.S. state that has the death penalty. Imagine that you’ve denied a condemned man’s last appeal and that he’s been executed. Now here comes some busybody with clear proof that that man was innocent: he simply didn’t do what he was condemned for. How are you going to feel? I assume that nobody here is an unreflecting brute like Bush Jr.; I assume – I think I know – that you’ll be profoundly troubled. Well, you deserve to be. Simple so far.

Now reflect on the actual situation as revealed by the Illinois case: a hair-raising number of men on death row who simply didn’t do what they were condemned for. Some of them are certain to be executed anyway, as have others who had no busybody to save them. What will that certainty do to you, the governor with life and death at the end of your pen? What will that certainty do to you, the ordinary citizen who knows that your state kills men unjustly in the name of justice?

How do you expect people to develop when they routinely tolerate cruelty? Do they become more sensitive? More civilized? Or do they coarsen, growing a callous shell to protect themselves from terrible thoughts? Do they become less savage, or more so?

In 1854, the state of Michigan executed a man who was later proven to be innocent. Out of remorse, the state legislature abolished the death penalty, making Michigan the first English-speaking polity to do so. (Can you imagine a modern-day state legislature doing anything out of remorse? Those were different times!) I can tell you that life in Michigan is not much simpler or cleaner than in other places – except for one good, healthy exception: we don’t execute anybody.

 

[Mason]

I don't see the death penalty as punishment, personally. Lacking an afterlife, I think the death penalty is much kinder than a life sentance.

But being kind or cruel to the prisoners is not my concern in the matter of the DP. There are certain elements of society that are bad for the whole. Many end up convicted and imprisoned for life. Now, the society has to support them until they die, and that individual, who has already caused harm to the society, has become a burden to society with no possibility of giving back in the future.

Of course, we're not talking about deadbeat dads here. Someone who is convicted of murder could be written off as having made a mistake, but someone who is convicted more than once, or someone who is convicted of rape more than once, and so on, should be looked at with an eye for their overall value. Will imprisonment accomplish anything beyond making the victim feel better now that the bastard is off the streets?.

I'm not drawing lines here, or setting requirements for the DP, just pointing out that there are numerous criminals in prison who will either never get out, or will never be more than a burden to society even if they do get out. I don't see a reason for keeping them around. I'm not talking revenge or an eye for an eye or any of that. I'm saying that if Johnny kills again, we can safely say that Johnny should be evaluated to see if there is any reason to keep him around long enough for parole to come up again.

If someone needs to be removed from society... Remove him. Hell, I think criminals should be able to enter a "guilty on conditions of Death" plea if they want. Judge says "Are you sure?", Criminal says "Yup", and the trial is over; off to the gas chamber with the convict.

But, rest comfortably, knowing that I'll never be a politician in position to make these decisions.

 

[crimresearch]

O.K.
Truthful statement #1: While Bush was govenor of Texas, mentally retarded people were executed. citation:Amnesty International

Truthful statement #2: While Bush was govenor of Texas, people who committed crimes before they turned 18 were executed. citation:Amnesty International

Correction: I should have described the U.S. not as a country that executes minors - I should have described it as a country that executes people who were minors when they committed their crimes.

If you believe this post involves blatant lying, feel free to point it out. [/B]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLATANT: (adj.) brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in
simple addition; a blatant lie.
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/blatant

LIE: (n.) A fiction; a fable; an untruth.
(n.) Anything which misleads or disappoints
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Lie
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a big difference between punishing adults for crimes they may have commited 1, or 2, or 20 years earlier as minors.

You made that very distinction in your post, and then went on to claim that the US *IS* on a list of countries that execute people while they are minors.

That fits my definition of both a lie, and of a blatant/obvious one, since the US is not on any such list.
Who are these minors on death row? How did their death sentences get past the US Supreme Court?


The US isn't even a country which executes people who were minors when they comitted their crimes.
Roper v Simmons
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=38&did=885

Nor does it have a policy of executing the mentally retarded, President (nee Governor) Bush, or not..
Atkins v Virginia,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-8452&friend=nytimes

The fact that it may have done so in the past, is not an accurate reflection of what the US does currently.


OTOH, when Illinois placed a moratorium on their death penalty, there were something like 160 people on death row...how does a dozen being cleared equal to half of the men on death row?

Again, obviously not true...

So....How exactly does it help the discourse against the death penalty to put forth ideas that are just not going to stand up to scrutiny?

 

[CFLarsen]

That point was w/r/t trust and government. I trust them in these othere spheres, why not this one?

In what spheres do you not trust them, then? And why?

If the issue of the death penalty is not a criminal justice issue, what is it then? A contract issue? Enviromental regulation? That was the point, but that is a nice appeal to popularity you spun there as a misdirection...

Who said it wasn't a criminal justice issue? I didn't, that's for sure. I listed the countries with death penalty. What strikes you the most?

Is punishment of criminals a legitimate function of a government, yes or no?

It is a legitimate function of a state. However, the state can not decide which of its citizens should live or die. The state is there for the citizens, not the other way around.

That is just weak. Airline piracy isn't violent? You may want to look as to the definitions of some of those crimes...

Please explain it, then.

Treason is a whole different issue altogether...

Which I would like you to address. Is it OK with you to execute people for treason, yes or no?

Plus there is an "as applied" problem. Can you point to one person executed in the modern U.S. era (since the DP was re-established in the early '80s) that didn't involve violence?

That's not the point. The point is that legally, you can be killed for treason. Look at the actual laws.

There never are exact cases, so you might as well argue that all snowflakes are different as well. Totally hypothetical and useless point.

And yet, the laws are meant to judge people equally for similar crimes. What you are suggesting is one law for each criminal case.

Those are pretty old cases,

You can't introduce a timeframe, when it suits you.

but again, these pointed towards the need for better procedural safeguards, not abolition. This may have been in your opinion a "lynch mob mentality," but this wasn't a lynch mob. These people were tried and convicted by due process of law as it existed at the time.

I disagree. Both cases were clearly a case of a state lynch mob mentality.

No system is perfect and they are refined as the need is apparent.

Nobody is claiming that it is. Heck, that's why I argue that the death penalty should and must be abolished!

Sorry. You do not get the time back. You don't get to forget being sexually abused because some people who should know better are amused by your torment.

You do not get it back. Unless you think Jeebus and his Dad are going to cut him a break...

I know you don't get the time back. I've said that. But you can get compensation. Exactly the way you get compensation for other losses. But how will you get compensation for a lost life? Not your family, but you, personally?

Apparently not the parts that approve of rape in prisons.

I do not approve of rape in prisons.

Sorry. You made light of rape in order to support your contention to keep 'em alive so that they suffer rape.

People who wink at this sort of thing need to take a long hard look in the mirror before they suggest that others are barbaric.

I neither made light of rape anywhere, nor did I wink at it. I have now several times explained this, yet you insist that this is my position. I got a feeling that you have nothing else to offer.

No. No punishment is desireable or OK for an innocent. But to suggest that the horror of long term wrongful imprisonment can be brushed off is daft. Especially when in your next point you dwell on the horrors of said imprisonment.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem - or you are trying yet another futile attempt to attribute POVs to me that I simply haven't got. I'll tell you what: You come back when you can understand what I say, and are prepared to discuss that. OK?

B.S. You are claiming that prison reverseable. You are also somehow claim it is better because it is worse than death for some. Who are you trying to kid?

...sigh....come back when you can read and understand.

1) To deter crime

Show the evidence that the death penalty deters crime.

2) To rehabilitate the criminal

Show the evidence that the death penalty rehabilitates the criminal. Oh, wait. You can't. Cuz he is dead!

3) To remove the criminal from society for the safety of society

If you don't think prisons are good enough for this purpose, then you got a serious problem!

4) Revenge/retribution

Irrelevant to justice.

First, the painless and private way these executions are carriied out have not been shown by you to decrease the detterence aspect, but I'm feeling nice and just giving you that even though I suspect it is a load of crap....

Hey, I am not the one who claims that the death penalty is a deterrent. So, is it?

(2)Is not served w/r/t the death penalty, except for serious religious types..

I have no idea what you are saying. Contrary to you, I admit it, and don't assume that I do.

But (3) is a huge issue. A dead guy is never going to harm anyone. No escape from that jail...

There's also no way you can correct a wrong sentence, if you take the life. And I am still waiting for you to provide a guarantee that nobody will ever be killed unjustly.

I'm also not going to disregard (4). I'm not a big fan of it, but there is something to be said for making the guilty suffer, as you appealed to with your rape comments....

I did no such thing, and it has been explained to you, repeatedly. You can keep up this charade, but it will not help your argument one little bit.

Plus, there is a bit of (3) and (4) that seems to apply with great force to the family of a murder victim...

Ah, but that's the rub. In a modern, civilized society, the family of a murder victim does not get to decide the punishment, and that's a good thing. Because if they did, we would see a lot of burnings, quarterings, flayings, etc.

So's the desire to eat and have sex. Your point?

My point is that justice is something that concerns us all. You may be horny, but it has no impact on my life. But if you are deemed to die, because the state decides that you cannot live, then it has a huge impact on my life. Because what can happen to you, can happen to me.

People desire revenge. Get over it. Better that the revenge take place in an orderly fashion as possible rather than a lynch mob, which is part of the point of government...

You want a blood-thirsty society, ruled by the sentiments of the mob. I don't. Pardon me if I disagree.

Let's recap:

• In what spheres do you not trust the government, then?
• And why?
• I listed the countries with death penalty. What strikes you the most?
• Please explain the definitions of what a violent crime is.
• Is it OK with you to execute people for treason, yes or no?
• Please show the evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
• Show the evidence that the death penalty rehabilitates the criminal.
• Is the death penalty a deterrent, yes or no?
• If yes, please provide the evidence.
• Can you provide the evidence that nobody has ever been killed unjustly (death penalty cases)?

 

[Kodiak]

Yes.

IMO, there are crimes for which ones life should be forfeit if tried and convicted.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

IMO, there are crimes for which ones life should be forfeit if tried and convicted.

Why?

What makes you the judge of who gets to live or not?

If you can't take that responsibility, why do you trust others to do it for you?

How will you guarantee that only those who deserve it gets that sentence?

If you can't, how can you advocate the death penalty?

The core question is: Why do other people get to decide if you live or not?

 

[shanek]

No. Absolutely not. Not ever. Because I don't like it when people commit murder; I'm certainly not going to sanction it when it's the government.

 

[CFLarsen]

No. Absolutely not. Not ever. Because I don't like it when people commit murder; I'm certainly not going to sanction it when it's the government.

We agree on something.

Miracles do happen.

 

[sackett]

Some people here support the death penalty, but I'm certain that nobody is enthusiastic about it.

You do meet execution fans, alas. I have a special type of regard for them, the tough-talkers who declare as if they were proud of it, “Nyeah, ‘n I’d pull the lever m’self!”

Bless their hearts, I bet they would, after the prisoner had been rendered helpless by a bunch of guards. But I wonder: What if one of these volunteer executioners found himself alone with the condemned man, bare-handed in some quiet place? I wonder how courageous he’d be then? Would he still regard the death penalty as a stern duty to be carried out by a virtuous citizen? Oh well, you know what I think would happen.

 

[Suddenly]

It is a legitimate function of a state. However, the state can not decide which of its citizens should live or die. The state is there for the citizens, not the other way around.

Uh huh. So if the citizens vote to protect themselves from criminals via execution, the state can refuse?

The state can kill... it can kill to protect its citizens in other contexts, and just because you don't see the connection with a death penalty doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Please explain it, then.

Sorry... you have assumed that these crimes are not violent based on the simple descriptive title. That is not evidence. It is not up to me to disprove that claim. Do it yourself, prove that these crimes do not involve violence, and then prove that when they don't they can involve death sentences under the modern U.S. system.

And yet, the laws are meant to judge people equally for similar crimes. What you are suggesting is one law for each criminal case.

Sigh. No, I'm suggesting that the world is complex, so all criminal law will have some subjective elements as a completely objective system will create injustice as will a completely subjective system. There has to be balance, and any level of subjectivity allows silly people to start screaming about the whole thing being arbitrary.

You can't introduce a timeframe, when it suits you.

Huh? Why not just reference 14th century England then? That system really stunk by modern standards and I'm sure you could find plenty of examples to show the barbarism of the death penalty.

To cite examples from a discarded system to advocate change from a present system is nonsense. Sort of like someone criticicing modern astrophysics because at one time they thought the earth was the center of the universe...

I disagree. Both cases were clearly a case of a state lynch mob mentality.

Were they actual lynch mobs? Yes or no.

Can you point to specific facts that show that they were not given due process as the system then afforded the accused? What are they?

People will always have a lynch mob mentality. It is called human nature. Government will not cure this, just muffle it somewhat.

I neither made light of rape anywhere, nor did I wink at it. I have now several times explained this, yet you insist that this is my position. I got a feeling that you have nothing else to offer.

Nah... you don't want to see the contradiction, that in one point you claim the death penalty is barbaric than later you advocate prison because it makes the prisoner suffer more...

You use of rape to make your point just makes it all the more glaring.

Show the evidence that the death penalty deters crime.

Sorry.... your claim was:

If people think it should act as a deterrent, then the deaths should be as gruesome as possible. But people don't want to see it when people die, and it has to be as painless as possible. It is hypocritical.

This is the claim for which there needs to be evidence. Not my challenge to it. Nice try on the burden shifting.

Show the evidence that the death penalty rehabilitates the criminal. Oh, wait. You can't. Cuz he is dead!

I believe I pointed that out. My exact words: "2)Is not served w/r/t the death penalty, except for serious religious types.."

Why be a jerk? Or is it that you aren't reading my post very carefully before just assuming a bunch of garbage?

If you don't think prisons are good enough for this purpose, then you got a serious problem!

What problem is that exactly? How familiar are you with the prison system here?

Do you have substance, or just bluster and conjecture based on your own beliefs?

Irrelevant to justice.

Maybe in fantasyland somewhere.

Hey, I am not the one who claims that the death penalty is a deterrent. So, is it?

No, you were the one that as above claimed that the method it was carried out betrayed that the people carrying it out don't care about deterrence. With no evidence to back that up of course.

That also, when read in a reasonable light, implies a belief on the part of the author (you) that if it were carried out differently than it would be more of a deterrent.

So, you did seem to be the one implying that fact. However, now I see that you were just being unclear. Please provide evidence to support your original claim, and perhaps restate it more clearly if I am again in error.

I have no idea what you are saying. Contrary to you, I admit it, and don't assume that I do.

See the (2) there? Now look up.... the (2) there refers to "rehabilitation." See, before in this very post you assumed that I was claiming that there was a rehabilitation aspect to capital punishment just because it was listed. This is where I said it wasn't.

There's also no way you can correct a wrong sentence, if you take the life. And I am still waiting for you to provide a guarantee that nobody will ever be killed unjustly.

Odd that you now grasp that I am referring to the above list.

Keep waiting. I neither made nor implied such a claim.

I did no such thing, and it has been explained to you, repeatedly. You can keep up this charade, but it will not help your argument one little bit.

Wait... so when you posted this:

Quite contrary, keep the buggars alive for as long as possible. To some, death is even a relief (Look up Albert Fish). Sure, by keeping them locked up forever, they can watch TV and read books, while sucking on the government tit. Know what? I got two words for you: Cavity searches. (I also got two more: Bubba's Bitch) Think that's a life? Anyone here want to swap their lives for that kind of life?

You were not implying that a benefit of a life sentence is that the criminal suffers? What was your point then?

My point is that justice is something that concerns us all. You may be horny, but it has no impact on my life. But if you are deemed to die, because the state decides that you cannot live, then it has a huge impact on my life. Because what can happen to you, can happen to me.

Off target. Your claim is that the urge for revenge is "primitive." So what? So are these other things.

Let's recap:
.. the

• In what spheres do you not trust the government, then?

• Not at all relevent. The list would be infinite, but the issue of crime and punishment is one where I do.
  
  If you mean "unconditionally trust," then I do not trust the government at all. I have to toss that in there as I do not trust you are reasonable.
  
  In fact, I half expect a "yes or no" type response....
  
  

  
  
  [*]I listed the countries with death penalty. What strikes you the most?

  That the list is not relevant at all to the discussion. Besides that, it is a weak appeal to popularity.

  
  [*]Please explain the definitions of what a violent crime is.

  An crime that results in violence or the increased likelyhood of violence. To answer the next silly question, no, I do not think all crimes of violence deserve the death penalty.

  
  [*]Is it OK with you to execute people for treason, yes or no?
  

  Yes. However, again, this does not mean that I think all treason should be likewise punished. However, under some circumstances it is OK with me, thus the "yes" answer.

  
  
  [*]Please show the evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
  

  As above, I need not show evidence to challenge a claim that you failed to support.

  
  
  [*]Show the evidence that the death penalty rehabilitates the criminal.

  Show where I made such a claim. I listed it as a possible purpose of criminal sanction, and then later pointed out it does not apply. You somehow assumed the above claim, and in a delicious twist of irony got all high and mighty about how you didn't assume such things...

  
  [*]Is the death penalty a deterrent, yes or no?

  
  Huh? I guess there is someone somewhere that would have killed someone or committed a crime but for the death penalty, so I guess the answer is yes.

  
  
  [*]If yes, please provide the evidence.

  Why? Plus. absent a mindreading device, we can't tell. People who decide not to commit crimes are hard to find, seeing that there is no crime or anything.

  
  
  [*]Can you provide the evidence that nobody has ever been killed unjustly (death penalty cases)?
  

No. So?