"I don't have a problem with people appealing the process, but I agree with Draug on not making it mandatory. If we went back to firing squads as being the primary source of execution, or hanging, costs would go down significantly more."

You missed your train, you can get another one back to Russia in 1952 at 3:07 on platform 8 in Union Station.

Aaaaaand the rest of Favio's post isn't even worth it.

I think bo_sox is trying to ensure that he gets to live out life in prison after he murders someone.

If all you have to do to get free food the rest of your life is murder someone, go for it!!!!!!!

"If you were to come back to life, and go to your murderers house and kill him with a syringe of cyanide, you would be a murderer. But do it through the state and it is "justice"." (SYnapse)
If someone stole your life savings from you and you then went to their house, took them away, and locked them in your basement or your backyard shed so they couldn't leave, you would be a horrific person. But if the state went to their house, took them away, and locked them up in jail or prison so they couldn't leave, it is justice (with or without quotation marks). So it's okay to take away a person's liberty but not a person's life? Why one and not the other?

"If you follow the jurisprudence that the law is supposed to protect the right to life, then the law against murder is undermined by the fact that the death penalty sanctions murder." (SYnapse)
This is a non sequitur. The law IS suppose to protect the right to life.....except, when you take away someone else's right to life, YOU GIVE UP YOUR OWN RIGHT TO LIFE IN THE PROCESS, as Draugnar said (though I disagree strenuously with him that you also give up your humanity in the process and become an animal). So if you've given up your own right to life, there's NOTHING wrong with the state actually taking your life from you. This isn't to say that the state always MUST take your life from you if you've given up your right to it, but if it does take your life when you've given up the right, it is perfectly just when it does so.

I should also point out that the state has more rights to exact justice (or revenge, if you prefer to call it that) than you do, which is something we all agree on. This is why it's okay for the state to imprison someone, but it's not okay for you to. It's also why it's okay for the state to execute someone, but it would never be okay for you to.

As for Ray Jasper, he might be a perfectly wonderful person who is not the same as he was 15 years ago, just as he himself said. He might also be self-deluded into thinking he's not truly guilty of murder, as Steven Alejandro has suggested. I have no idea. But I do know this: if he was directly complicit in the murder of David Alejandro (and there seems to be consensus on all sides that he was), then he gave up his right to life. And if the state of Texas chooses to proceed with the execution, it will be entirely just in doing so.

@OusideSmoker - I actually as referring to serial killers and mass murderers. I do not view the typical murderer as an animal. Often times, they are driven by circumstance. But Jeffrey Dahmer was an animal. Timothy McVeigh was an animal. People who kill without remorse and do so en masse or repeatedly are animals.

Oh, and I just got back from having two bowls of tobacco: one the way to pickup lunch and one on the return trip, OutsideSmoker. It's finally a day in the 70s where I can have a pipe or a cigar.

I've never had a strong opinion on capital punishment, although I've always found it odd that the strongest proponents are usually the very people who don't trust the government to do much of anything. However I can say that the drug substitutes the USA is using for lethal injection are leading to truly horrible executions and under current conditions I cannot support it.

All this business about calling people animals makes me sad. No non-human animals I know kill for pleasure, except perhaps cats.

i still don't get the concept, to be honest. if my best friend or my mother or whatever person close to me was killed, i would feel more "revenged" if the killer had to spend the rest of his life in prison. i am against captial punishment for other reasons as well, but i never got that: how's death worse than imprisonment for 20, 30 or maybe even 40 years, or the rest of their life?

Death guarantees the person can't get parolled or escape. It provides a level of safety to society that prison does not for those who can't/won't be reformed. That said, I still only believe in it for mass murderers and serial killers, not for your everyday murder even when it is premeditated.

You cannot give up your rights. There's in fact nothing in the constitution that mentions anything about giving up rights. We never voted for the death penalty either.

There is this little thing that says something to the effect of those powers not explicitly given to the federal government or explicitly forbidden to the states are the states to control. So the Constitution, which is about restricting the federal government's power, has shit to say about whether a state can say someone has given up their rights.

And I say (and many others agree) that you *can* give up your rights.

The constitution is merely a statute outlining the organization of government. Of course it has nothing to say about criminal penalties. It is not the Strafgesetzbuch. Of course we do not vote on criminal law penalties. That would make no sense.

Also, are you saying one cannot waive a right to an attorney or jury trial?

Yes, you cannot give up your right to them. You can fail to pursue your rights, but you still have them. They are inalienable. No-one has the right to kill you, even if you ask them to. That is still murder.

Back to the circle jerking. Your philosophy is natural rights. Mine is societal. Society giveth and society can taketh away.

Part of a series looking at issues in ethics and Public Affairs, emanating from the University of Saint Andrews, this book offers a clear and scholarly overview of the issues and theories concerning punishment. Anthony Ellis sees a social shift away from more liberal notions of justice, framed by notions of individual and collective rights, towards a harsher, more 'utilitarian' one backed by a desire to, well, 'punish'. Retribution, not reform is the watchword. Event that old guideline, the need to protect the innocent, has given way to wider and more enthusiastic application of strategies intended to deter wrongdoers.

Of course, making offenders suffer is one way to reform people, and offenders are less likely to offend again if they are either permanently incarcerated or even executed. Which only goes to show that many debates in this area can be, and are, oversimplified.

"You can fail to pursue your rights, but you still have them. They are inalienable. No-one has the right to kill you, even if you ask them to. That is still murder."

What is the distinction? Isn't euthanasia simply the 'failure to pursue rights' in the same manner as waiving a right to an attorney during interrogation?

More practically, what is the use of 'rights' when continuing to live is absolutely miserable? Why should we care about these supposed rights under such cases?

Hey, can you link me to a copy of the series (for purchase is fine) as it sounds like a fascinating read. Seriously, not being facetious or demand "put up" or anything. I actually think I'd enjoy reading it.

No euthanasia is contrary to allowing yourself to die.

The book I posted draug is THE PHILOSOPHY OF PUNISHMENT By Anthony Ellis - he argues that our societies are becoming more bloodthirsty and neglecting of our own rights that were established hundreds of years ago.

Thanks, I'll look it up.

On the issue of euthenasia, it isn't always about someone else killing you. A person can leave a living will that states they do not wish to be maintained on life support as my parents have (and as it happens, I do as well).

DNR is not the same thing as euthanasia. Euthanasia requires activity to end a life, DNR is non-activity.

Two very recent news items made me seriously wonder how anyone can maintain a pro-death penalty position. I will provide links with 2 or 3 minute links imbedded.
Firstly there is this guy who had spent 30 odd years incarcerated on death row; a mistake in the ‘’justice’’ (or should I say ‘’legal’’?) system:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604

And then there is this former prison governor describing the effect on him of administering capital sentences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26273051

So here are, in my opinion, the two most powerful arguments against the death penalty presented in very human terms.

The main arguments used by proponents of capital punishment are that is serves as a deterrent (which isn't true given that there is no correlation between homicide rate and severity of punishment); that they don't want tax dollars spent on keeping a serial killer alive, (the irony being that an execution costs the state as much as a 91 year prison sentence); and for revenge (which is a moral issue that I suppose could be argued either way. Personally, I think advocating death for a petty reason like revenge is uncivilized).

"the irony being that an execution costs the state as much as a 91 year prison sentence"
It sounds very strange. Where did you get this number?

It actually doesn't cost that much. Those who would propose banning the system use that statement but it is false. Executions are very very cheap. It's all the fucking appeals that are so expensive and we male them mandatory to kill a serial killer. If you look at nations who execute sentences immediately, the death sentence is the cheapest one out there.

It doesn't matter, if you bring economics into a debate about ending human lives, you're a pretty godless person and I pity you.

well Draug, there have been multiple instances where after 15 years in prison it has been determined that someone was innocent.

You are right that because there are a million appeals is why the death penalty is so expensive, but the fact is the stakes are much higher and would you rather kill someone instantly and it turns out you're wrong, or would you rather wait 20 years like in the US?

for clarification, the ideal is no death, I'm just saying if you have to execute them

@SYnapse, the justice system is very much an economic issue, and by extension the debate of capital punishment.