Why pay $20-30K a year indefinitely when for a fraction of that we can put him to death and let that be the end of it?

You wanna give him a trial before we kill him? Or should we just shoot him now?

Honestly? I'm cool with killing him now and saving the expense, but I'm pretty sure you know I was responding to the idea of paying $20-30K each year to keep him locked up, which would really be post conviction.

Who needs trials anyways? The guilty should not get trials.

Typical person uninformed about the real costs of the death penalty. :headshake

Feels good to say though, huh? "Hellll yeah, kill that dadburn varmint. Yee-fucking-ha."

Because putting people to death has other costs. I do not want my government to have power of life and death over any of its citizens, guilty or innocent. Not all cases are as cut and dried as this. Though these are usually the ones wheeled out by those who are pro-death penalty.

Death is irreversible. To date no justice system has proved itself flawless. Too many people get convicted and go to prison only to have their cases overturned years later, for the death penalty ever to be considered safe. And whilst one can point to this case and say it is pretty damn clear he's guilty, legislation can only be made on the assumption that all convictions are generally safe.

I also believe the death penalty is morally wrong. Aside from that there is enough evidence to show that where it is used the death penalty is often painful and extended. Electrocutions can take many minutes of agony. Lethal injection also often causes agony. If the point of the death penalty is simply to deny that person life and remove them from our world, then there is no reason to do so in a painful fashion. The fact that they will no longer live is enough. If the point of execution is to punish with pain, then I think that is brutal and unwarranted. That they have been brutal does not mean that we should be brutal.

Right on sister :eyebrow::cool:

(the above quote was modified for humor)

I envision some chaw-spittin' going on, too.

before or after we kill him?

What percentage would you attribute to this "Too many"? Just asking. Please just don't say "even one is too many" I'm trying to quantify this.
Good - I hope they die a horribly painful death. For someone to actually make it through to where the death penalty is actually meted out, they must be a virtual monster. No mercy deserved. Toss 'em out like yesterdays garbage.

From the New York Times:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...h-penalty.html

Obviously the death penalty is handed out in many cases where the case is less than clear cut.

Now dar, quit letting facts get in the way of all the god-playing. ;)

Honestly Classic, I do believe one is too many.

And as I may have posted before: mercy resides in the person giving it. Not the person receiving it. Whether or not someone deserves that mercy is irrelevant to me.

You're a better person than I am Dana. I personally feel that in a case like this after the person has received a fair trial the death penalty should be applied. If that means the poor guy feels pain along the way then so be it. He has forfeited his right to breathe, imo. If that makes me a barbarian, then I'm cool with that. I've been called worse.

Unfortunately, laws do not apply exclusively to cases "like" the ones which you may cite as an example of their suitability.