Death knell for the death penalty?

I have no sympathy for the man who died of a botched execution. Still, I do not support the death penalty and have not for many years. It seems they are more callous about these things these days. If you can't do it painlessly, then don't do it. That's a small part of my objection. The other part is, way too many innocent people get convicted.

As much as 4%, by some estimates. Scary . . .

If DNA evidence exonerates the executed, he can always be acquitted.

I used to be for the death penalty an Im slowly reassessing that position.Advances in forensic SCience have made "eye witness accounts" almost valueless.

I totally support the death penalty as a method of retribution.

Unfortunately, it is a method left to the State to implement and:

a) I don't trust the State to get anything right, let alone killing someone

b) More importantly (to me) I don't want the State to have the legal power to kill any of it's citizens. This is a prohibition that should be writ in stone.

The fiend in question buried a girl alive and so I couldn't care less whether he suffered or not. In fact, I'm glad he did.

He had a companion on the Oklahoman Death Row that raped and murdered an 11 month old child. I really wish his execution had been botched and he suffered greatly.

There has never been even a hint of doubt about these two monsters' guilt, but in for a penny, in for a pound. There have been too many cases where people sentenced to death have been proven innocent to allow our justice system to kill anyone.

It's not, at all, a barbaric practice, it is a flawed and potentially tyrannical practice.

So, you are supportive of the concept but not the practice. I can use that for my entire reason to have changed my cap punishment position.

Its kind of like the concept of a "just War"

I am indeed supportive of the concept but not the practice.

What you do with this revelation is up to you, but give credit where credit is due if I have helped you resolve an intellectual conundrum.

I don't, at all, see how it is like the concept of a "Just War," or war in general.

There are absolute alternatives to the death penalty. There are not always the same for war.

Trying to transpose my argument against the death penalty to an argument against war is specious.

Let's use WWII as an example of a "Just War"

Japan attacked the US. We can argue all day as to whether or not Pearl Harbor was the forerunner of a threat to the American homeland, but for those who lived in America at the time, it was reasonable to assume it was.

Based on that assumption, there was no alternative to war other than eventual surrender. This, clearly, doesn't match the alternatives involved with apprehended murderers.

In the the case of the murderer, the choice isn't to let the monster go free and endure his or her predations, its how to deal with the monster.

We also went to war with Germany. Putting aside the fact that Germany declared war on us, it, again, was reasonable to assume that Germany presented an eventual threat to our homeland.

Do you, for a minute, think that if Hitler had been successful dominating all of Europe, the Soviet Union and Africa, that he wouldn't have eventually found it necessary to invade the US?

Here again the alternative to going to war with Germany was doing nothing, not an alternate method of dealing with the threat.

The notion of a "Just" war is somewhat ridiculous. With the exception of wars started solely for the purpose of expanding the personal power of an individual, they can all be justified. To the extent they are actually justified it is because there is no reasonably acceptable alternative.

There is, to repeat myself, a reasonably acceptable alternative to capital punishment.

OK, WWII , and easy pick. (Remember that not all executes are innocent)

DO me one of those nifty analyses with VIET NAM,PHILLIPINES, IRAQ, the NATIONS, NICARAGUA (there are quite a few others but Ill bet these will keep you busy trying to shoe horn the "Just War" moniker)

Only if DNA evidence exists.

I don't support the death penalty because it's final and irreversible and has occasionally been carried out on the wrong person. However, I'm also a terrible person and laughed when I saw the headline: "Inmate Dies After Botched Execution." Umm... isn't that the desired outcome?

I'm opposed to the death penalty because I think killing people is wrong. I don't want anyone killing anyone in my name.

I don't understand how anyone is comforted by killing prisoners. Can anyone explain to me how that works?

Well, they might if I considered any of them "Just Wars"

If the prisoner tortured and killed someone you loved, and you lied awake at night hopelessly trying to rid your mind of images you had created of the horrendous act, you might be comforted knowing the prisoner had been killed for his or her crime.

It might also comfort some of us to know that retribution exists in our world.

I see that but I don't get how their death would make me feel better.

If I were the relative/friend of someone who was killed I think I'd be miserable feeling responsible for the death of another person and I couldn't help but think that their relatives/friends would grieve in the same way I was and how I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Well, now you have a better understanding of how some people can be comforted by an execution. Previously you asserted you had no understanding, so I feel comforted.

I can understand your position on this matter. It's reasonable, but it's not the only possible reaction for a moral and civilized person.

Well then I just won't worry my pretty little head about it....

I'm trying to understand why someone would think that way. Saying "that's how they feel about it" doesn't quite do the job.

I explained it, and without saying "that's the way they feel." If you can't understand the way they feel, you have an empathy problem. You don't want more of an explanation, you want "these people" to admit they are wrong and you are right.

I acknowledge that the way you feel about this is reasonable, and yet you've chosen to take umbrage. Suit yourself

What you're having so much difficulty with is the notion that someone might be rational and morally upstanding but just not think the way you do.

BTW: I have no idea whether or not your head is either pretty or little and I doubt you just told us all it is. In fact, your comment is simply an attempt to impart upon someone with whom you may disagree, base motives: In this case sexism. Another example of the great value you place in your opinions.

I couldn't care less what your gender may be as respects the comments you post.

Perhaps a Freudian Slip or perhaps not, but it's clearly not a matter of how you would feel for the rest of the world.

There's a problem in the US in that a great many white people have very little contact with blacks and many couldn't tell two blacks apart if one were male and the other female or one alive and the other dead. THAT translates into a lot of people sitting around in prisons over bogus eye witness identifications.

In theory at least I've got nothing against hanging somebody like Manson or Dennis Rader. Here's the problem: I'd want at least two or three changes to the system before I could feel good about capital punishment anymore.

1. The criterion of guilt should be "beyond any doubt, whatsoever". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for capital punishment; you can't unhang somebody.

2. The person in question would have to represent a continuing danger should he ever get loose again. Or, somebody like this guy who goes on ordering crimes from inside a prison cell would certainly qualify. Society basically has no other way to protect itself at that point.

3. I'd want to get rid of the present adversarial system of justice and replace it with some sort of inquisitorial system in which the common incentive for all parties was to discover the truth of the matter. It's bad enough that people sit around in prison because their lawyer simply wasn't as good as some prosecutor on a given day; you sure as hell don't want people dying for that reason.

The biggest problem would be finding some sort of an ironclad and foolproof set of criteria for determining "guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever". You'd get judges and prosecutors wanting to tell you somebody like Sarah Johnson in Idaho was guilty beyond any and all doubt, while that is simply less than obvious to all observers.

They expected DNA testing to eliminate the prime suspect in felony cases in something like one or two percent of cases and many people were in states of shock when that number came back more like 33 or 35%. That translates into some fabulous number of people sitting around in prisons for stuff they don't know anything at all about since the prime suspect in a felony case usually goes to prison.

In a rational society, the job of DA would not exist. The job involves huge power and almost no accountability, and can be a magnet for psychopaths. DA is too often the first rung on a ladder for political careers and more than a few such careers are founded on the blood of innocents.