The Death Penalty - Should it be abolished?

Just as has violence and many other ignoble traits.

Thing is, to me, retribution is one thing and vengeance is another. I've no qualm with retribution in a justice system. I do have a qualm with vengeance in a justice system.

The definition you quote comes with an additional portion in some dictionaries:

[QUOTE"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"]Punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense; retribution; -- often, in a bad sense, passionate or unrestrained revenge.

No matter how one twists it, killing is not the solution to killing. I've already given plenty of reasons why that is. The arguments on this thread are at the point of repeating themselves. I don't care to restate it endlessly.

If "trait" is defined as a genetically determined characteristic, then I don't know how it can be considered ignoble.

In any case, a lack of nobility is not quite the same as a lack of morality.

Vengeance need not involve passion, but to the extent that it does, I would agree its kind is not a welcome addition to the justice system, but only becasue passion clouds judgment, not because passionate revenge is in itself a vile thing.

It's here where I think we differ. We most likely agree that killing is at least an intensely violent and disturbing act. We also most likely agree that, in general, killing is not an act that very often can be squared with morality.

But I don't find it immoral to take some sense of satisfaction in killing given unique and specific circumstances. Not delight or titilation, but satisfaction. My guess is that you feel that even when killing may be necessary (e.g. self-defense) it can only be accompanied by a sense of revulsion if it is to remain squared with morality.

There's rather more you've written that I could take issue with, but this fallacy is the biggy.

My example was to illustrate that an appeal to tradition could just as easily be made of morally lacking acts.

Nope, I certainly don't think so. Feelings are not easy to control and I don't usually indict people for their impulsice feelings but rather for acts based on them.

I'd not consider it immoral to derive satisfaction from death, just an impulse that I think people should watch for as there's a very fine line between the sane and those given to their more base instincts.

I might, however, find the mentality repulsive, depending on the particulars and manifestations of it. But not necessarily immoral.

Any close family member of a victim of a vicious crime would feel the same. Myself included in that assessment. Which is I believe the reason why, in a modern society, justice is placed in the hands of the state. So decisions can be made coldly and analytically. I can't believe anyone here, even those most enamoured with the concept of the death penalty, would like to live in a society where justice was left in the hands of the victims. It would be anarchy.

It gots to be balanced by the fact people get wrongly convicted. You can reverse a life in prison without parole sentence, but you cannot give a person's life back.

Hmmm - my understanding is capital punishment works IF a potential offender feels certain they will be convicted, AND if the sentence is carried out very fast.

There are any number of moral issues in the world. Because I do not see Capital Punishment as one doesn't mean that I believe there are none. I can appreciate the vehemence that some folks have on this subject, but that vehemence doesn't create the base for all discussion on morals: "If you cannot see the morality in this issue, you obviously cannot see it anywhere!"

What I am not willing to do is accept what I believe is a facile contention that killing is absolutely immoral.

it is a just punishment for a very few crimes which society has deemed so horrible that this individual doesn't deserve to continue consuming oxygen on this planet.