heretic888 said:
Again, I am still waiting for a logical, falsifiable argument that supports state-sanctioned murder. . .
Justice - How does one recompense for a slain person? Let the state support them for the rest of their lives? Granted, death penalty cases cost more than life sentances, but thats due to our legal system and almost endless appeals. A "slap on the wrist" for something as brutal as murder/rape seems a slap in the face of justice.
Deterent - Lets look at something other than murder. Take smoking. Lets make a law that perscribes the death penalty for smoking. Lets actually enforce it too. You are seen smoking, you get shot by cop. You hide cigarettes in your house and cops find out, you get shot. I imagine after a few broadcasts of people getting killed for smoking, and the rate of smoking decreases. Now, of course this is a ridiculous example, but it makes the point that a strong enough deterent makes the point. Will murder still happen? sure, it always has and always will. However, we can reduce the rate by having an appropriate penalty. Take for instance an old arab tradition for theives. You steal once, you lose a hand. you steal twice, you lose another hand. You steal again somehow, you lose your head. I wonder how many theives stole twice? Or a third time? Is it brutal? Yes. Incivil? Perhaps. Just? I think so.
Finality - You can break out of prison. You can get paralloed. You can get pardoned. You can't break out of, get paralloed from or pardoned out of death. For people like Dohmer, Malvo, Hussein, that have serious problems that time will never cure, this is a lasting solution. Someone like Bin Laden won't be able to write books for his followers, won't be an emotional beacon for years to come and inspire his followers when he is 6 ft under. Questions on martyrdom are a bit different, but I'd rather have a dead Bin Laden than a live one still giving orders (unless you keep him in an isolated box for the rest of his life). Issues of martyrdom could be dealt with on a case by case basis, but I doubt you could argue that someone like Dohmer, Malvo or some drug/mob/gang lord could possibly be considered a martyr.
History - I know you won't like it, but the death penalty has been around for a long time. This does not make it valid, but does not make it invalid. Thinking of yourself as more "socially evolved" does not make it so. Most codified laws in the past have some form of death penalty. why do you think they have existed? What purpose did they serve? Are you so self-sure of yourself and your opinions that you are willing to toss out the tradition of almost all previous civilizations simply because you don't like them or are offended by them? Granted, societies evolve, but we need to determine which traditions are worthwhile and which are worth discarding. I claim that this is one we need to maintain. We have no cure for murder, regardless of what your favorite psychologists might say.
So, the question comes to you. Exactly what good is coming from keeping Dohmer alive? Malvo? Hussein? Bin Laden? Why should we waste resources keeping them breathing? What is your justification for denying justice for thousands of people murdered, for fathers who have seen their children raped and murdered? What would you say to them? We are dealing with real victims here, not abstract concepts. These people had families, they had children and parents who loved them and they loved. Some sicko cut short a life of dreams and potential happiness, and you want the guy to get free cable for life? Or send him to some class so he can -potentially- get "better"? Sometimes the "justice" system just irks me.
Personally, if we are going to endorse the death penalty, I think it should be done openly, rather than in the middle of the night, like we are trying to hide it. After a few public executions I think the public would see things a little bit differently. I personally think its something to be used extemely infrequently, but it does have its time and place.