That story is just sad...
I can't believe they actually sentenced him to life sentence.
Anyway, I'm against the death penalty, not only because some innocent might get killed, but because I also think that every human life is valuable, and no one has the right to take that. I know kmurderers don't think the same way as I do, but killing them isn't going to fix anything.
Besides when you kill someone, it's not just bad for that person (if it's even bad, considering they will be, you know, dead) but also it's a pretty shitty experience for the people that knew them, if a murderer has a daughter and a wife, even if he's a murderer, they will be sad for their loss.
I'm not saying that because everyone has people that care for you you should let the whole prison free, but I think killing someone is way over the top.

I am for the death penalty because it is society's way of saying to someone "Sorry, but you're just too much trouble." Mind you, I think it should be reseved for only the worst repeat offenders and people who committ war cirmes or crimes against humanity. You can't just go around axing retarded people. While every human life is valuable, even those of criminals, those who break the social contract (that we all abide by in this little thing we call society) repeatedly and well beyond anything forgiveable and with maliscious intent pose a threat to us that really can't be ignored. So yeah, sorry, but you'd just be too much trouble if we let you live.

The idea that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilized is moot, because the barbaric and uncivilized thing would be to have someone show up to his house, and bludgeon the guy to death with a pan of rice crispie treats. The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control. Its pretty much a descriptor of human "civilization" that we have these kinds of mechanisms.

The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control.

A lot of terrible things done in the world are all (or at least most) of these things too.  That's all I can say about that.

The idea that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilized is moot, because the barbaric and uncivilized thing would be to have someone show up to his house, and bludgeon the guy to death with a pan of rice crispie treats. The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control. Its pretty much a descriptor of human "civilization" that we have these kinds of mechanisms.

the reason people call the death penalty barbaric and uncivilized has nothing to do with the quality of the death.

There is no death penalty in Canada right now (I live here). I don't really believe in it though. I almost think it is a 'worse' punishment to let some rot in jail for the rest of their lives, thinking about what they have done. The only thing the death penalty, in my opinion, solves right away is the victims family's, or whatevers, feelings. I mean they have a relief that the person who committed the crime is now dead, and justice has been served. I just think it would be better to put them in jail for the rest of their lives, rather then let them take the 'easy way out' in a sense.

I don't believe in the death penalty because it's just an easy way out, I think someone commits a crime warranting the death penatly should be tortured mentaly and always given hope...and have it take away from them. (live in a box room, warm enough to sustain life, live with your own shit..etc.)

Are you fucking serious? You can't be fucking serious.

i am for it, but not in the traditional terms. first of all, i am completely againt the electric chair or lethal injection. i have no alternative solution, but it think a greater deal of thought needs to be put into this. secondly, i believe the death penalty does not deter people at all. thirdly, only those who have clear and obvious evidence linking them to a crime, and the crime itself being more than a single murder, should ever be sentenced to the death penalty. finally, my reasoning for this is because i think life imprisonment (if you are guilty, innocent people could eventually get freed by evidence although admittedly it is not a high chance) is completely pointless and in my opinion, life imprisonment is less humane than actually killing someone. in current prisons, an ideal prisoner would essentially be a robot and cannot contribute anything to society. all maximum security prisons (in america at least, i admit i am not well versed in prison systems of the world) simply want to contain the inmates. there is no point in this. at the same time i admit it would be pretty hard getting prisoners to DO THINGS that would self sustain the prison system or at the very least pay for a portion of it.

financially it should be a lot less to execute someone, but this has very little to do with my reasoning. juris linked some figures but i'm going to disregard those because it makes no sense why maintaining a human for life should be cheaper than executing someone. i am going to give the benefit of saying it's about the same, but it shouldn't be and this needs to fixed. you could argue the death sentence stands in the way of a more "rehabilitating" prison system, but again, i don't think there is any reason someone who commited multiple murders should be existing. someone like this has already greatly set back society, and by getting rid of the worst of the worst, you can still go forward with a better prison system. potentially you could get rid of this down the line, but as it stands now, this would be someone who would spend a lifetime in jail as an alternative.

you could say to me that anyone who is sentenced to life that doesn't meet my criteria goes againt my inhumane argument. i actually think anyone who faces a life imprisonment should have the choice of being executed. in this same vien, you could say an innocent person may opt to take this route when they may be cleared later. all i can say to this is that it's highly unfortunate anyone would be falsely imprisoned for life and in an anti-death penalty prison system you may have innocent people living a pointless existance in prison.

as xeno-soft has already proved, there are people against the death penalty because they think it is a worse situation than death. i have heard this countless times and i cannot imagine how someone againt the death penalty for ethical / moral reasons would see this as any better than someone for the death penalty. this said, i think the poll is not completely true to the figures because i do believe a lot of people are against the death penalty for this reason. not to say the death penalty is any better than not having it, i actually think it makes very little difference either way. although i do think it is more humane with the things i have listed.

I maintain my statement that while the means of rational execution may be inhumane, it is a very civilized process, because the other side of the coin, the "uncivilized" equivalent, is pretty much anarchistic vigilante homicide. My point is, is that without legalistic forms of execution, the in-practice alternative would in fact be more anarchic and "barbaric" (I hate using the word, being a classicist and knowing how arbitrary it is). Of course, this is more of an argument on the mode of the death penalty rather than weather it is acceptable or not. My point really is that its not barbaric, but inhumane, yes it can be, but that doesn't mean it can't be justified.

financially it should be a lot less to execute someone, but this has very little to do with my reasoning. juris linked some figures but i'm going to disregard those because it makes no sense why maintaining a human for life should be cheaper than executing someone.

as far as Juris's argument goes, I can back it up with every legal class I've taken and every citation I've ever read; because of the appeals process, media circus, increased security, death row maintenance, and a whole lot of factors, seeking the death penalty almost always costs more than life in prison. you can't just say "well, it should be less huh" because it's simplifying too much about the death penalty. the majority of the money spent by the state on death penalty stuff has to do with the appeals process, something I think we all agree can't be cut.

if you really want more studies, I can ask around for them, but im lazy to do it for internet.

I maintain my statement that while the means of rational execution may be inhumane, it is a very civilized process, because the other side of the coin, the "uncivilized" equivalent, is pretty much anarchistic vigilante homicide. My point is, is that without legalistic forms of execution, the in-practice alternative would in fact be more anarchic and "barbaric" (I hate using the word, being a classicist and knowing how arbitrary it is). Of course, this is more of an argument on the mode of the death penalty rather than weather it is acceptable or not. My point really is that its not barbaric, but inhumane, yes it can be, but that doesn't mean it can't be justified.

Dude if you're saying that without a death penalty, people will just go around killing murderers, then you... my god this is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Have you taken into account all of the countries that don't have death penalties (like my very own England) yet are not goverened by vigilante law. We have a very public legal system where murderers, paedophiles and mass rapists get their faces and names published everywhere in a mass media frenzy.
Yet we don't have snarking lynch mobs.

as far as Juris's argument goes, I can back it up with every legal class I've taken and every citation I've ever read; because of the appeals process, media circus, increased security, death row maintenance, and a whole lot of factors, seeking the death penalty almost always costs more than life in prison. you can't just say "well, it should be less huh" because it's simplifying too much about the death penalty. the majority of the money spent by the state on death penalty stuff has to do with the appeals process, something I think we all agree can't be cut.

if you really want more studies, I can ask around for them, but im lazy to do it for internet.

i have no disagreement with the costs either way. the point i am making is that it makes no sense why it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for the remainder of their life. i myself was not aware the costs were at least comparable until a few years ago, and was surprised to hear it myself. i can't imagine the current process used is very efficient if this is the case the majority of the time.

Are you fucking serious? You can't be fucking serious.

lmao; your post had me rollin' , nah, but i don't beleive in the death penalty.

I'll just C&P something i read

The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative -- life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials -- one on guilt and one on sentencing -- make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

theres also this

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Facts-and-Figures/Cost-of-the-Death-Penalty/page.do?id=1101084&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99