What is the purpose of Capital Punishment?

[TheUncanny]

I was going to make this thread about people's opinions regarding the death penalty, but then I got to thinking. Simply asking what people think of the death penalty probably isn't going to produce the most meaningful conversation, and personally I would prefer a well thought out discussion over a lively (yet pointless) argument. So I have decided to change my approach. Instead of just putting my opinion out there so that people can either agree or disagree with me, I felt it would be more beneficial if I were to ask this question instead: What is the purpose of Capital Punishment? I think most of us here would agree that killing a person is a serious matter that deserves serious consideration, regardless of if you are for or against capital punishment. Considering, I felt that this common ground was a good place to start the discussion. I assume that if you advocate the death penalty, you do so because there is a good reason for having it i.e. a purpose or multiple purposes. So what are they, and how is capital punishment justified by those purposes? I’ll start with my opinion. Realistically, I feel that there is no other purpose to capital punishment besides legal revenge. And though I don’t necessarily feel that revenge is never permissible (sometimes revenge and justice parallel each other), I do understand revenge for what it is. However my point is this; Is revenge enough of a reason to have capital punishment even though there are many more reasons to do away with it? By now, you may be wondering the reasoning behind my opinion, such as why I feel captial punishment isn't justice, retribution, a better deterrent, more economical, safer for society, etc. I feel that it would be pointless to preemptively address each argument before such arguments are even made, so I think it would be better if I address each one as they come.

[wasup]

Capital punishment is the process of killing people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong. Duh.

[TheUncanny]

So, would you say that the purpose of capital punishment is to deter people from killing each other? If so, why advocate the death penalty over life in prison?

[Oneironaught]

Death as result of killing others is the ultimate deterrent. If that doesn't make you think twice then nothing will. The problem is that the death penalty isn't enforced as it should be. When you have people that are of that magnitude of threat to others then they must be dealt with or you continually clean up the aftermath. Killing killers isn't about legal revenge. It's about demonstrating that with ultimate wrongs comes ultimate penalties. The punishment must fit the crime. This concludes my opening statement, Your Honor.

[Michael]

I voted revenge and justice. It can be revenge if a person kills one person or so and that person actually changes their way of thinking in prison. I mean, they regret it and have remorse, and would never do it again. In this case, maybe the chance of parole is ok after 25 years. But thats up to the justice system and the victims family to keep testifying against the murderer. It can be justice for people that will never change their minds and would always kill again when given the chance. these people do deserve to die, and thats why they do. you also got to remember, someone innocent lost their life during this for no reason, and the family suffers... so I dont really feel sorry for anyone given the death penalty, even if they have changed.

[TheUncanny]

Death as result of killing others is the ultimate deterrent. Statistics overwhelimingly show no change in murder rates in states which go from allowing the death penality to not allowing it, and vice versa. When you have people that are of that magnitude of threat to others then they must be dealt with or you continually clean up the aftermath. Isn't that what prison is for? Killing killers isn't about legal revenge. It's about demonstrating that with ultimate wrongs comes ultimate penalties. The punishment must fit the crime. And yet the ultimate penalty arguably does more harm than good. This topic touches on the general purpose of what we call "punishment". The options I listed above are the only purposes of punishment I can think of off the top of my head. What would you say the purpose of punishment is?

[Oneironaught]

It can be revenge if a person kills one person or so and that person actually changes their way of thinking in prison. I mean, they regret it and have remorse, and would never do it again. I don't buy the whole "change of heart" argument. Too many people conveniently "find God" suddenly when imprisoned. Remember, the idea isn't only to squelch potential repeat offenses. The real purpose of the death penalty is to prevent first-time offenses. But deterrence only works if justice is served swiftly and harshly.

[TheUncanny]

I voted revenge and justice. It can be revenge if a person kills one person or so and that person actually changes their way of thinking in prison. I mean, they regret it and have remorse, and would never do it again. In this case, maybe the chance of parole is ok after 25 years. But thats up to the justice system and the victims family to keep testifying against the murderer. I mean life in prison without parole. It can be justice for people that will never change their minds and would always kill again when given the chance. Not if they can't get out of prison and/or are in solitary confinement. The only thing that capital punishment seems to accomplish that life in prison (without parole) doesn't is killing the criminal...and thats it. you also got to remember, someone innocent lost their life during this for no reason, and the family suffers... so I dont really feel sorry for anyone given the death penalty, even if they have changed. True, but doesn't the family of the executed murderer suffer as well? Isn't justice about "righting" what has been wronged? Its very similar to the notion of retribution. Basically, this notion suggests that when a crime has been committed, a sort of "debt" is created. According to retribution, the only way to "correct" this is by restoring the debt back to a state of equilibrium. However, this method cannot be used to justify captial punishment because killing the murderer doesn't restore the life of the victim. And simply because the murderer dies doesn't mean the debt is satisfied. Look at it this way. Imagine someone owes you $1000. The death penalty would be on par with some third party comming along, taking $1000 away from that person, and burning it. Yeah, the person who owes you money is out 1000 bucks, but the debt is still there. The only point of doing something like this is revenge, plain and simple. I don't buy the whole "change of heart" argument. Too many people conveniently "find God" suddenly when imprisoned. I never intended parole to be part of the equation. I only meant to compare life in prison (without parole) vs capital punishment.

[Lord Toaster]

I completely disagree with the death penalty. I think that a good way to lower the murder rates would be to not allow citizens to carry guns. People say that they need them to defend themselves... but from what? More people with guns. Bleh. If someone is remorseful and regrets what they've done, then they don't deserve death. Just lock them away for life, which usually means 20-30 years. One action will have cost them almost half their life. I think that's enough.

[Oneironaught]

Statistics overwhelimingly show no change in murder rates in states which go from allowing the death penality to not allowing it, and vice versa. Because justice isn't doled out swiftly enough so it's become a running joke. In every case I know of - even when dealing with terrorist heads (Saddam, anyone?) we tend to drag the process on for years and years. Every one knows that all it takes is a smooth lawyer and your chances of evading justice are very probable. Isn't that what prison is for? Why are dogs or gators that have developed blood-lust put to death? Same reason. Once a killer - always a potential killer. Once a cheater - always a potential cheater. When one has the propensity to murder then they are no longer fit for life. Pampering them in custody does not send the right message to society. Instead, it shows a level of tolerance for heinous acts. What about the poster who comes here for the sole purpose of SPAMming the forum? Should they be allowed chance after chance because - after all - they might change? (I just had a horrible vision of my own actions around here, minus the SPAM aspect. I really to need to be nicer). No, they need to be banned. And yet the ultimate penalty arguably does more harm than good. Stopping society's most dangerous does far more good than harm. How does ending a killer's life do harm to society? What would you say the purpose of punishment is? Deterrance and to change people's ways. Now, I know you'll counter with the notion that you can rehabilitate a killer. Just like some think you can change the heart of a child molester. But, is the risk to others worth taking the slim chance that one might have a epiphany? Even if yes, what gives them the right to life after willing denying some one else that right? An overwhelming majority of people who spend time in jail/prison end up repeating their crime, many times on a larger scale. As I point out on a regular basis, personal responsibility is where it's at. If you can't handle the consequence than you'd better think twice about earning and/or deserving it.

[wasup]

So, would you say that the purpose of capital punishment is to deter people from killing each other? If so, why advocate the death penalty over life in prison? It was a joke. Basically I was showing how illogical the death penalty is. Death as result of killing others is the ultimate deterrent. Two problems with this. One, as Ethen says... Statistics overwhelimingly show no change in murder rates in states which go from allowing the death penality to not allowing it, and vice versa. If this isn't a good enough rebuttal, then consider this: I, as many others, would probably rather be put to death than be locked in prison my entire life being anal raped by a large black man and being someone's proverbial bitch. Here's a quote for you... "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

[Oneironaught]

I mean life in prison without parole. But how does a killer deserve the luxury of life? True, but doesn't the family of the executed murderer suffer as well? I have news for you, the family suffers from the moment the crime is committed. Isn't justice about "righting" what has been wronged? Its very similar to the notion of retribution. Basically, this notion suggests that when a crime has been committed, a sort of "debt" is created. According to retribution, the only way to "correct" this is by restoring the debt back to a state of equilibrium. That sounds pretty sweet and all but, not all wrongs can be righted. Some loss can never be replenished. That doesn't change the fact that a price has to be paid for committing such acts. The only point of doing something like this is revenge, plain and simple. Again, you're missing the point of rules. What good are rules if there's no enforcement? I never intended parole to be part of the equation. I only meant to compare life in prison (without parole) vs capital punishment. The killer in jail still enjoys the basic pleasures of life. When you deny some one else those same pleasures then you, yourself, should be denied them. Turnabout is fair game. I completely disagree with the death penalty. I think that a good way to lower the murder rates would be to not allow citizens to carry guns. People say that they need them to defend themselves... but from what? More people with guns. Bleh. You too are missing the point. Since when is murder only possible by means of a gun? You really think that complete abolition of guns will eliminate murder? People will always be @ssholes. There will always be those who think they have the right to end another's life and they will use any means they can. If someone is remorseful and regrets what they've done, then they don't deserve death. Too little - too late. Anyone can act remorseful after the fact. "I've found God!" Bullsh!t. But guess what? You're about to find God as soon as this little air bubble reaches your right arm. Going, going, gone...

[TheUncanny]

Because justice isn't doled out swiftly enough so it's become a running joke. In every case I know of - even when dealing with terrorist heads (Saddam, anyone?) we tend to drag the process on for years and years. Every one knows that all it takes is a smooth lawyer and your chances of evading justice are very probable. The legal process isn't perfect, thats for sure, but people should have the right to a fair trial, don't you agree? Often that requires more than one trial and a lot of time. Or we could just recklessly kill people without properly determining if they are innocent or guilty. Why are dogs or gators that have developed blood-lust put to death? Same reason. Once a killer - always a potential killer. Once a cheater - always a potential cheater. When one has the propensity to murder then they are no longer fit for life. Pampering them in custody does not send the right message to society. Instead, it shows a level of tolerance for heinous acts. I don't see the relevence to any of this unless you are taking parole into account. Nevertheless, the point of this was to determine what, if anything, is the point of killing a person over locking them away for the rest of their life. Lets try to work within that framework. And since when is spending the rest of your life in prison is "pampering" ? If anything, death would seem like the easy way out compared to the psychological torture a person who is forced to spend the rest of their life in prison would have to endure. What about the poster who comes here for the sole purpose of SPAMming the forum? Should they be allowed chance after chance because - after all - they might change? (I just had a horrible vision of my own actions around here, minus the SPAM aspect. I really to need to be nicer). No, they need to be banned. All banning does is keep that person from being able to post and/or with the forum. Life in prision does the same thing as banishment. It removes the person from the society they have wronged, permanently. Killing, though it does the same thing, is unnessecary. Stopping society's most dangerous does far more good than harm. How does ending a killer's life do harm to society? Life in prison also stops society's "most dangerous", except it costs 15%-33% of the price of the death penalty. Why should tax payers have to pay for someone elses bloodlust? Imagine what we could do if, instead of spending so much on executing people, we reinvested that money back into the legal system to directly prevent crimes? After all, what do you think is more effective: Spending millions on executing one person in the hopes that it will stop future murders, or putting that same money into more and better equipped police officers and/or jails? Deterrance and to change people's ways. Now, I know you'll counter with the notion that you can rehabilitate a killer. Just like some think you can change the heart of a child molester. But, is the risk to others worth taking the slim chance that one might have a epiphany? Even if yes, what gives them the right to life after willing denying some one else that right? An overwhelming majority of people who spend time in jail/prison end up repeating their crime, many times on a larger scale. As I point out on a regular basis, personal responsibility is where it's at. If you can't handle the consequence than you'd better think twice about earning and/or deserving it. This is neither here or there. Like I said before, this is not about parole or second chances. This is simply about life in prision (wihtout) parole vs death penalty. __________________________________________________ _____ But how does a killer deserve the luxury of life? Life is hardly a luxury in prison. Death would seem like the luxury after a while. That sounds pretty sweet and all but, not all wrongs can be righted. Some loss can never be replenished. That doesn't change the fact that a price has to be paid for committing such acts. I don't gte this. On one hand you say that some wrongs cannot be righted, than on the other you say that "the price must be paid" as if doing so is what rights the wrong. If murder cannot be righted, then how do you justify the death penalty over life in prison without parole? An eye for an eye only works when wrongs can be righted, otherwise its just destruction for the sake of destruction, and nothing more. Again, you're missing the point of rules. What good are rules if there's no enforcement? What are you even talking about? I said the only point in executing someone is to "murder them back", not because doing so would right anything, but only because it would hurt them to an equal degree. Thats the difference between revenge and retribution. One is about getting back what is deserved, the other is simply about getting back at someone. And it doesn't matter if the person deserves the revenge or not, its still revenge. The killer in jail still enjoys the basic pleasures of life. When you deny some one else those same pleasures then you, yourself, should be denied them. Turnabout is fair game. Yep, thats called revenge. I never said revenge was wrong, however, it just is what it is. Of course, why should I (or others) have to pay for someone else's revenge when all society needs is that the crinimal is permanently taken off the streets? All that extra money should come out of the families pockets if they want to have the person executed. I'd understand it if they wanted revenge, I would too. But I think its wrong to do that at other people's expense (besides the one you want revenge on), and thats exactly what the death penalty does.

[Oneironaught]

The legal process isn't perfect, thats for sure, but people should have the right to a fair trial, don't you agree? Often that requires more than one trial and a lot of time. Or we could just recklessly kill people without properly determining if they are innocent or guilty. I'm referring to only the cases in which guilt has already been defined and determined. It is at that point when justice (e.g. issuance of swift and strict penalty which is proportional to the severity of the crime in question) must be applied. Any less is equal to toleration. In my eyes, murder is not a tolerable offense. Nevertheless, the point of this was to determine what, if anything, is the point of killing a person over locking them away for the rest of their life. Lets try to work within that framework. And that's what I'm doing. But you refuse to accept that personal responsibility is more than a slogan. There is a price that should be paid. That price should reflect the crime and nothing less. It's ridiculous that people who've been convicted for many years end up rotting in prison because our lawmakers are too spineless to actually enforce laws. And since when is spending the rest of your life in prison is "pampering" ? If anything, death would seem like the easy way out compared to the psychological torture a person who is forced to spend the rest of their life in prison would have to endure. When the choices are being killed and being allowed to live, I'll choose life every time. If I accept your logic then we should just kill every one in most 3rd-world countries because they live very hard lives. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Of course it does. Because, compared to death, life is a luxury. To deny some one life is the ultimate punishment. I wouldn't mind seeing a little vigilante justice taking place in the mean time. Maybe a few visits a day from Bubba would be in order but, they aren't a sufficient alternative to being put to death. All banning does is keep that person from being able to post and/or with the forum. Life in prision does the same thing as banishment. It removes the person from the society they have wronged, permanently. Killing, though it does the same thing, is unnessecary. But killing is a banning from the forum known as life. Being allowed to live, eat, dream, have hope, etc... are all the equivalent of being allowed to post in the forum. Life in prison also stops society's "most dangerous", No it doesn't. But it does temporarily suspend the activities of some. except it costs 15%-33% of the price of the death penalty. Why should tax payers have to pay for someone elses bloodlust? Riiiight, because one bullet or one flick of 'Ole Sparky's switch is soooooo much more expensive than paying to house, feed and look after some burden on society for the rest of their life Imagine what we could do if, instead of spending so much on executing people, we reinvested that money back into the legal system to directly prevent crimes? What I'd rather imagine is you getting some perspective on the relative costs between the two options. And also, keep in mind the extraordinary cost when these monsters get themselves back out into the world. After all, what do you think is more effective: Spending millions on executing one person in the hopes that it will stop future murders, or putting that same money into more and better equipped police officers and/or jails? Uh, spending the money we would otherwise have wasted tending to some piece of Human sh!t on those things you mentioned is what I believe should happen. Again, it doesn't cost squat to kill an offender. Like I said before, this is not about parole or second chances. This is simply about life in prision (wihtout) parole vs death penalty. It's funny how you say it isn't about second chances when you support giving a second chance in the form of allowing the offender to live and try to "make something of himself". Your stance is absolutely about giving a second chance. Life is hardly a luxury in prison. Death would seem like the luxury after a while. Give me a break. Prison may be hell but it's not what you seem to think it is. I guarantee you that almost every one in prison would much rather live in captivity than be put to death. I don't gte this. On one hand you say that some wrongs cannot be righted, than on the other you say that "the price must be paid" as if doing so is what rights the wrong. "Paying the price" is about punishment. It's NOT about righting wrongs. You keep trying to pretend the two are the same thing: they aren't. It's like saying that if some one robs a bank - then blows all of the money before they get caught - they shouldn't pay the penalty. Just because they can't "right the wrong" (by paying back the money) doesn't excuse them from being held responsible for their own actions and paying the legal price. We can't continue this attitude of everything being some one - or some thing - else's fault. We are ALL responsible for our own actions. If you don't like the penalty then do not commit the crime. It's that simple. If you don't like that posting porn pictures on DV leads to a ban then, dammit, don't post porn pictures. But don't let me hear you crying and bitching when you take it upon yourself to disregard the rules then find your ass banned. You knew the price - you decided the price was worth it to you. If murder cannot be righted, then how do you justify the death penalty over life in prison without parole? I've already answered this several times. You just don't want to listen to my answer. Punishment isn't only about righting wrongs. Punishment is about deterrence, prevention of recidivism, lending credibility to laws and their importance, and setting an example for others who may be contemplating making the same bad choices. An eye for an eye only works when wrongs can be righted, otherwise its just destruction for the sake of destruction, and nothing more. Lordy, lordy... An eye for an eye works when one doesn't care to lose their eye and knows that if they do what they shouldn't do then they WILL lose that eye. See my 'posting porn on DV' example above, then see the profiles of those members who chose to do it anyway. Tell me, oh wise one - and tell me honestly: What would be your biggest deterrence from walking up to Chuck Norris and sucker-punching him in the face? The fear of being charged with assault? OR... the fear of him beating the living shit out of you? Damn right, that's what I thought. The fear of having your skull crushed makes one hell of a compelling reason to NOT do that, doesn't it? What are you even talking about? Dittos, my good Sir. Dittos. I said the only point in executing someone is to "murder them back", not because doing so would right anything And that is still not why it's a valuable tool. Retaliation is only a small part of the equation. When you get the same penalty for housing large quantities of pot as you get for murder, I don't see how you feel that's going to deter any one from committing murder. Especially since most people who murder probably partake in other crimes that bear the same weight, as far as penalties go. Thats the difference between revenge and retribution. Wrong. Revenge is satisfying a personal vendetta. We aren't talking about personal vendettas here. We're talking about law enforcement and maintaining order. One is about getting back what is deserved... And guess which is which... Wrong. Life in prison is not "getting" what a murderer deserves. They deserve no less that to also be denied the right to life. Yep, thats called revenge. I never said revenge was wrong, however, it just is what it is. Of course, why should I (or others) have to pay for someone else's revenge when all society needs is that the crinimal is permanently taken off the streets? Been there - countered-pointed that. All that extra money should come out of the families pockets if they want to have the person executed. What's all this "extra money" you keep rambling on about? You don't solve your ant infestation by moving the mound. I'd understand it if they wanted revenge, I would too. Get this revenge notion out of your head. It's a weak argument because it's completely besides the point. Law enforcement IS NOT about personal revenge or "getting back at people". It's about making the crime NOT WORTH COMMITTING. But I think its wrong to do that at other people's expense (besides the one you want revenge on), You're completely backwards on this. The real issue is why sustain the lowest of the low "at other people's expense"? You seem to be confused about what it means to be a criminal and a victim. Reverse your definitions of the two and you may be headed on the path to understanding. Just because you're too lilly-livered and weak to hold others to a high standard and expect others to be held responsible for their own actions doesn't excuse your tolerance. The important part: People are well aware of the penalty of murder. By committing murder, you sign your own death warrant. By committing murder, you sign a contract that says you accept the penalty. You keep acting like the death penalty is somehow imposed on people who didn't know what they were getting into. And that, my friends, is why Liberalism does not and never will work: because it's all about feel-good recovery dreams rather than about actually changing people's motivation. The death penalty is about changing motivation by making the consequences not worth the crime.

[Spartiate]

Personally, I believe that the death penalty is a relic of older judicial practises. Back in the day, you would be put to death for nearly any crime. Since we have ethically evolved a bit since then, capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous crimes (murder). It is still practised out of "tradition" or "habbit". The reason that I am against it, is that our judicial system, any judicial system, is imperfect. Sooner or later, mistakes will be made and an innocent man will be condemned to death. Recently, in my country, a man was just acquitted of murder after spending nearly 50 years behind bars. No way he would have enjoyed any respite if we hadn't abolished capital punishment. I simply don't think that the death penalty has sufficient advantages to outweigh the significant risk of killing innocent people. And don't come all Stalin like and tell me that "the death of a few people is a menial statistic", imagine if you were the one who was falsely accused!

[Oneironaught]

Since we have ethically evolved a bit since then, capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous crimes (murder). Yes, that is a good thing. Too bad most murderers never get the death penalty. The reason that I am against it, is that our judicial system, any judicial system, is imperfect. That imperfection works both ways. Sooner or later, mistakes will be made and an innocent man will be condemned to death. Recently, in my country, a man was just acquitted of murder after spending nearly 50 years behind bars. No way he would have enjoyed any respite if we hadn't abolished capital punishment. I simply don't think that the death penalty has sufficient advantages to outweigh the significant risk of killing innocent people. And don't come all Stalin like and tell me that "the death of a few people is a menial statistic", imagine if you were the one who was falsely accused! So, because one innocent may have to perish (ever hear of the tragedies of war?) we can't punish those who ARE in the wrong? Typical feel-good mentality. Way to skirt the real problem: that lack of enforcement feeds the fire.

[Kromoh]

Bravo, Spartiate Man, I'm completely against the death penalty. If you believe that after you die, you will be taken to a better ppace, then keep it for yourself. I believe we completely disappear when we die, so death penalty is the worst nightmare. By the way, if a person is condemned to spend their life in prison unjustly, they will have their entire life to try to get out of it. Look at how many important people write when they're in prison. You can't say it's worse than death penalty.

[Howie]

TO install FEAR in would be rapist, murderer etc.

[wasup]

Oneironaught, ethen often refers to the high price of capital punishments. You say "oh how much does it cost to put a bullet in his head or electrocute the convict." I don't really think you know much about the actual process of capital punishment. I am not pretending to know it all here, but it DEFINITLY costs a lot... more than feeding and sheltering them all their life. For one, the court costs for capital punishments are huge. Also, they don't just "put a bullet in their head." It's more about lethal injections now... which cost a LOT as well. Let's just say, you are greatly underestimating the cost of capital punishments. And back to what I originally said, Oneironaught... why kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? And about the Chuck Norris analogy, I don't think that is a very accurate one. It has it's point, but people are more afraid of PAIN than death. With capital punishment, they do not feel pain in the way they are executed. It's different if the punishment for murder were capital torture. THIS is a deterrant (I am not condoning this, for the record). But people who murder... they are usually not in their right mind anyways and are more focused on the loss of a life of another rather than the preservation of their own life. I just don't see capital punishment as a legit deterrant.

[wasup]

Bravo, Kromoh. You say you are against capital punishment but you just completely defended it.

[Howie]

accountablilty

[timeless petal]

i voted retribution but should have gone with revenge as well. i believe its the ''eye for an eye'' principle. i reckon death penalty for murder is just but not for something like drug trafficking

[Moonbeam]

It's been proven that capital punishment is not a deterrent. It costs much more to kill someone than to imprison them for life. Capital punishment is applied arbitrarily. DNA evidence has exonerated many people on death row. The people doing the arresting and sentencing often have their own careers in mind rather than "justice". Juries are screened for people who have any knowledge or intelligence, I'd be all for killing murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. if it weren't for the above facts.

[Oneironaught]

Oneironaught, ethen often refers to the high price of capital punishments. You say "oh how much does it cost to put a bullet in his head or electrocute the convict." I don't really think you know much about the actual process of capital punishment. I am not pretending to know it all here, but it DEFINITLY costs a lot... more than feeding and sheltering them all their life. It costs more only because of our shoddy manner of handling it. And because of our skittish society. Oh, and because of all the do-gooders who think they are justified in fighting for the "rights" of those who - in the eyes of the law - have voluntarily forfeited their rights. You don't see the victims getting all these "rights", do you? Why do those who actually do the deed deserve the basic Human rights they so selfishly deny others? For one, the court costs for capital punishments are huge. Also, they don't just "put a bullet in their head." I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware that just about any high-profile case is unnecessarily expensive because we give the criminals more rights than they deserve. My point is that to enact a death sentence is far easier than its naysayers would have us believe. It's only tedious and expensive because of our bleeding-heart manner of enforcement, or lack thereof. It's more about lethal injections now... which cost a LOT as well. Let's just say, you are greatly underestimating the cost of capital punishments. But the expenses are resultant of a poor enforcement system, not actual cost of enforcement. And back to what I originally said, Oneironaught... why kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? Because it shows that the price of the ultimate crime is the ultimate punishment. And that's one heck of a price to pay. But people who murder... they are usually not in their right mind anyways and are more focused on the loss of a life of another rather than the preservation of their own life. But MOST people - even those who don't value the lives of others - value their own lives and will fight to preserve it. If it were as you say then all murderers would just kill themselves while their at it. They don't because to them their own lives are worthy of preservation. I just don't see capital punishment as a legit deterrant. If you assume the context of stopping all murder, then no. But, if you take into account that most murders are probably not done by people with such cold-hearted intentions. Many are just people who - in a fit of rage - thought they'd take the "easy way out". Those kinds of people will be made to think twice before doing such an act. No law is going to stop all crime and that isn't the goal. The goal is the reduce the number of people who take the murder road. Just like the threat of being banned won't stop all bad behaviour but I will make people reconsider their actions. It's like the old argument of locking your car doors: Some people say not to because "if they want to steal from your car then they will". That sounds good but it doesn't make any real sense. Because by locking your car doors, you actually reduce the odds of things being stolen from within. A huge percentage of things stolen from cars are stolen by opportunists who wouldn't have committed the crime of the windows weren't down or the door left unlocked. Capital punishment isn't going to stop the hardcore criminal but it can greatly reduce the instances of opportunism. Bravo, Kromoh. You say you are against capital punishment but you just completely defended it. You noticed that too? The crucial element that you all keep ignoring is that people who murder know what they are getting in to. They know the price yet they feel the risk is worth it. They get what they deserve only when they are put to death for their inexcusable actions.

[Spartiate]

So, because one innocent may have to perish (ever hear of the tragedies of war?) we can't punish those who ARE in the wrong? Typical feel-good mentality. Way to skirt the real problem: that lack of enforcement feeds the fire. I'm not saying that all murderers should be released! I'm all for life imprisonment (real life inmprisonment, not that 25 years crap). The thing is that neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment have any substantial advantage over one another, except that with the death penalty, you run the risk of killing innocent people . The death penalty is also definately not a deterrent. As you mentionned yourself, many murderers don't get it (mostly the 2nd degree "impulse murder" kinds). Those who do get the death penalty, are mostly of the crazy sociopath serial killer kind. These people couldn't care less about their own death. You also seem to place very little importance on a human life. When I quoted Stalin, I was referring to his infamous "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic". You seem to justify needless deaths with a "shit happens" attitude. Yes innocent people die in war, but is that right? If there was a way to win a war without any collateral damage, wouldn't you use it? In justice, we have that option. Maybe if you would actually see a person die before your eyes, you would quickly change your mind. It's easy to point and complain from your computer desk, but, when your in an execution room and the last seconds of a person's life are ticking away, it's hard not to have any compassion for even the most wretched human being, let alone an innocent one . This doesn't even limit itself to the judicial system. The practise of capital punishment diminishes the importance of human life, which basically makes us look expendable.