Are you for or against the death penalty

[ChristFTW]

Unless wrongly convicted and executed of course.

[xx_dustin_xx]

How so? Merely because I hit him with facts and actual data? or because I actively hunt his posts and then refute them? Forgot that haven't we? Why do you care if i'm specifically annhilating his claims?

[Jordan.]

You are correct in your conclusions (in my humble opinion), however, you should not use logical fallacies to get there. To say the state murders goes against what the state calls murder and that is the "unlawful" part. You used the definition you wanted because it proved your point. The second definition is the one that is actually used. Your argument should indeed focus on the social and economic costs of execution for criminals rather than calling such things "murder".

Huck.

[Johnny P]

Okay John Kerry. Keep up the flip flopping.

I wonder how long it will take before you decide to support the exections of people who have doubtful guilt and then decide to not support the exections of people who have doubtful guilt!

FLIP FLOPPING VOICE OF JOHN KERRY.

[jerey]

That's a bad example as well. Dukakis was a moron for giving Horton weekend passes.

The penalty as a concept is not bad. The penalty in pratice is quite revolting. Still, I'd rather have death penalty convicts tortured for 50 years instead of just killing them.

[ThE uLtImAtE cHeEz BuRgEr]

Only a small gap between for and against. The time will come when the U.S. joins the rest of the western world in abolishing the death penality. Over 40 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes since 1990. We should look at the company we are in ...... in 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

[califrniateach]

You would let her give birth and then execute her......

[proud walker]

My understanding is that a significant majority of released prisoners do not repeat their crimes. It is the ones that do which we pay attention to.

But why do you have to get rid of them by killing them. They will also not hurt an innocent person or strike again if they are behind bars the rest of their lives. Killing them is not necessary for this purpose. A cancer that does not spread or interfere with one's metabolism is just as harmless as one that has been cut out.

[LuckyLudivine]

Do I condone the state murder of innocent people?

No.

[thunder1225]

Were I to argue in front of the Supreme Court (and I confess I have no idea what I'd wear) I would take the position that Life Imprisonment without the possibility of parole is Cruel and Unusual.
If we're going to tell someone that the crime he/she has commited is so heinous and despicable that they don't deserve to ever taste freedom again, but then take the position that we'll do everything in our power to keep them alive, well...at that point we're being Cruel, though sadly not Unusual.
If they develop diabetes, we'll give 'em shots to keep 'em alive....and imprisoned.
If they have a heart attack, we'll slap some defibrillators on 'em and zap 'em back to life.....so we can watch that life slowly eaten away.
If they break a leg, we'll fix it.
...take out a gall bladder or kidney or whatnot.....
...anything we can, in short, to keep them alive and...., well and what actually? Penitent? Please.... there's a reason they're not called Penitentiaries any longer. Few of them are penitent (check your local recidivism rate).
Answer: alive and Suffering.
That implies something a bit different than justice, an eye for an eye, say. The Suffering bit implies Hatred, Evil even, if ya believe in that sorta thing.
No, I think I'd rather just execute them and have done with it. Do away with Life w/out poss. of parole and get rid of 'em.