The thinking that a state executing even one innocent person is immoral. And, you and I both know it has happened.

It is thinking like this which exposes you as the biggest Statist on this board.

Griff is correct again

Remember, 85% af Statists are made up.

Change "Revolution" to "Status Quo", and Che has found a new soul-mate.

ok. where do i even begin to start this response. are you saying UG that it;s ok or tolerable, even an accepted loss for someone to get axed if they are innocent? kind of like 1 out of 10 and that is an acceptable loss? why don;t you go and spend time in prison for something you did not do and then think again about the death penalty. you WILL change your mind. now i do agree with you on the firing squad. much cheaper than the drugs that texas and other states use. but inmates on death row are inherently more expensive to take care of. man power wise. that;s where the cost comes in. the solitary that is mandated to those on death row is what rises the cost by means of the guards watching over them and they do get 1 hour of rec a day so there are the guards watching the rec yard, the guards watching death row, the guards watching the guards. i know you won;t get what i;m saying but it;s worth a shot anyway.

And the numerous mandatory appeals, required by law, slogging through the courts.

Also, death row inmates don't usually participate in the work assignments that help defer the cost of prison.

So many reasons it costs SO much more to put someone to death than to incarcerate them until they die. BUT, I don't think it's ok to say "meh, one or two mistakes here and there. Gee, sorry."

Abolish the death penalty. Think what it will save the courts and the prison systems. It's never worked as a deterrent (the typical "crime of passion" killer or psychopath doesn't think about the death penalty when killing...gee, I'd love to go all crazy and murderous right now but let me weigh the pros and cons.)

If something happened to someone I love (and it did, and he got away with murder) I would want revenge, but I would want it to be a revenge that lived with them, literally, for the rest of their life. Death is only an easy way out for them.

(here is where UG tells me I should be ashamed. Funnily enough, I'm not.)

And howdy Bruce!

hiya bruce!

good points both.

now Here is a little tid bit i found.

That does not satisfy. It is instead a dodge: are you going to resist evildoing to the fullest measure or are you going to wimp out, confining resistance to evil to some lesser level? Wimping out does not demonstrate moral development: it demonstrates a misplaced fearfulness. Cowardice, I say, and you have made no cogent rebuttal to that.

Statism? I doubt that, Griff. The coercive -- law-enforcement -- apparatus of the state is used to eliminate insofar as possible a vengeful or feudative aspect to the damage-control effort that a death penalty is -- since nobody thinks blood feuding between the relatives of the decedent and of the murderer would be conducive to civil society, and we do like having that around.

The requiring that someone who has killed wrongfully should atone for it by relinquishing their life is not an example of a society's villainousness, but of the degree of its regard for innocent life. This point is usually lost on the death-penalty opposition, which is drawn from that portion of the population that generally does miss vital points.

I am, Griff, a libertarian whether you want me to be or not. If you do want, excellent. If you don't, then fuck you in a highly libertarian manner. Be damned to any stumbler who thinks I'm a statist. I'm just not an anarchist, and do not trust anarcho-libertarian ideas very much.

(I have no idea what "fucking in a highly libertarian manner" would look like either. :3eye: Am I curious, eh?)

Pithijinx's cites are all of the manner the United States does its executions. What does one AK bullet cost Red China? A nickel? It isn't like they pay the triggerman any special emolument. And what they use for execution sites is grassy open fields. Seems executing a death penalty is not inherently expensive.

We spend the money we do to be careful about how we do it. For those who say death is no deterrent, I reply "Then why do the condemned use, well, every appeal avenue open to them between sentencing and a date with the executioner?" And is it not remarkable how few of the condemned waive any of their appeals process and hasten to their deaths? Should it happen, it is material for headlines, is it not?

It's a point of fact that far more bad guys get killed by private parties than by the state. The private parties, often being criminals themselves, are as often pretty unsavory... but effective, in illustrating J.R.R. Tolkien's adage Oft evil will evil mar, if nothing else; getting shot while doing something wrongful definitely adds up to a marring.

It isn't expensive in a totalitarian state. Since we aspire to a more liberal society, it will be more expensive here and still some innocent will die.

Saying that capital punishment is not a deterrent has nothing to do with the fact that most on death row would prefer to live. The crack head who shot up a neighborhood, the crazy wife who kills her husband and kids, the jealous boyfriend who strangles his estranged for leaving him: these folks weren't thinking "gee, I'm really mad but you know what? I sure don't want to be gassed. I think I'll just watch TV." They may, however, wish they hadn't done it...when all has passed. That they want to appeal and keep on living when the deed is done and the punishment is before them is irrelevant to the crime of 'passion' (read: rage, despair, crackheadedness) that occurred. The comparison is laughable. It's intellectually lazy to not make the distinction.

Whether one is for or against capital punishment one has to be cognizant that it is NOT a deterrent, it is retribution. One's feelings on whether this retribution serves society are what is up for debate; anyone without their head in the sand (for which one should feel the shame you bat about like so many fuzzy mice) knows that the death penalty has never served as a deterrent. This is common sense. Maybe this kind of sense is really only reserved for us common folk.

Exactly. The threat of capital punishment did not deter them from doing the deed in the first place.

I deny any and every accusation about sand-heading, inasmuch as I also advocate armed self defense -- the ragers against self defense end up ashamed before me -- and point you once again towards the utilitarian idea that an executed man does not commit further atrocities. Highly reliable, that one. Capital punishment is a societal edition of armed self-defense: it removes threats permanently.

Which is where the intelligent man who shoots back comes in -- a quite libertarian idea, Griff. Spexxvet, however, gets bent altogether out of shape at the prospect, lacking rational thinking as he does: he is profoundly hoplophobic and mistakes this phobic pattern of thinking for virtue. Otherwise, he would have abandoned it long ago, as I did, though I did not have as long a path as he to walk.