The Death Penalty

I'll tell ya, Boss, the crucial word in your statement is "outgoing." Other governors are probably acutely aware of their chances of reelection, and therefore less likely to stick their necks out. My sentiments coincide with yours, but i an cynical about the likelihood of such magnanimity by our respective governors.

Ryan's actions may be commendable but he'll pay dearly for it should he dable in politics much farther.

Also keep in mind that not all Governors have the authority to pardon and/or commute sentences. Bush has been critisized several times for not commuting sentences but the Texas Constitution and State laws don't give the Governor in that state the direct authority to do it either.

"...the Texas Constitution allows a governor to take such action only if the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles first recommends it. And even if the board does, the governor may still reject a commutation.

Additionally, the state constitution allows the governor to grant a one-time, 30-day delay in an execution..."

from the Houston Chronicle

The death penalty is one of revenge not of punishment.
When someone undergoes the death penalty, society as a whole becomes a band of murderers.

Good point Setanta. Less a case of mercy than a kick in the butt for whatever politicial party annoyed George?

Possibly, Tommy, i'm being cynical, i know--and having followed Ryan's statements on the death penalty for a couple of years now, i do wanna say that the man is sincere--but the political situation cannot be ignored. My most generous response is that the man is sincerely merciful, and is willing to sacrifice his political career; my most cynical response is that he has been responding to the heated public debate on the issue in Illinois, and, having no further political ambition, takes this opportunity to "position" his party on the compassionate side of the issue, without risk to those members of that party who will attempt to continue in office. Take your pick.

To execute or not. It's a gut wrenching choice for many people. Perhaps a similar number would rapidly say yes and just as many say no.
During the last year in the UK a number of children have been abducted and subsequently killed. I can only imageine the fear and then the total terror these children were put through.
Now their killer may have commited a "one off", a moment of madness perhaps. Instead the person might be a serial killer. Either way the killer is total scum. No excuses, no pleas of insanity. If somebody murders with malice aforethought, then execution should be the end game. I don't care if people call it punishment, retribution, state murder or revenge.

As I understand it, Americans can own guns for defence in cases of burglary for example. If they shoot an intruder, they are given the benefit of the doubt. American cops carry firearms and shoot people.
I don't have any desire to own a firearm, but then I don't want scum walking the streets either. UK cops should carry a firearm when on duty. There's enough crime going on to warrant it.

As I stated in another thread, I favor a death penalty - one much restricted to those in force now - A question that occurs to me is this (for those opposed to a death penalty):
Suppose, in a less than perfect world, a woman gets married. The husband becomes progressively more abusive until her very life is in danger. She finally breaks and pours gasoline over the bed he's sleeping in and ignites it. She has taken a precious life away. Is she guilty of murder? How does her action differ from executing the wastes of protoplasm in human form who have tortured and murdered and who would do more of the same, given their freedom? How is the life of such a person precious? I am not considering the railroading of innocent people in the equation - That is where I come in with wishing to severly restrict the depth and breadth of offenses covered by a death penalty.

Okay, williamhenry, so what's wrong with revenge.

I once attended a class with our former chief of police, and this was one of the topics that came up. He was opposed to the death penalty, but only because of the money and time involved in the process were prohibitive.

To the extent that the concern is for executing an innocent person, maybe the problem is in the court system, and not the death penalty itself.

Death penalty is neither a revenge, nor a punishment. It is a security protecting measure, similar to this when the cop shoots down the armed suspect if the latter does not immediately disarm on cop's order. And it is supposed to be a deterrent to the potential perpetrators, but its efficiency is not so clear.

Well, steissd, I don't know from you got that "death penalty is neither a revenge , nor a punishment".

Which law theory stands behind the idea to use death penalty* as "security protecting measure"?

* penalty: Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Medieval Latin poenalitas, from Latin poenalis
Date: 15th century
1 : the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

I did not adhere to the lexicographic definition of the term, I referred rather to its essence. Of course, "penalty" is a punishment (even the penalty kick in soccer), but let us consider that this term is an euphemism for neutralization of the dangerous member of society, when we refer to the capital type of punishment.

Capital punishment, steissd, is a legal action. it is done by law.

Legal terms are generally no euphemisms - at least not in democracies.

Walter, Walter, Walter, "Legal terms are generally no euphemisms?" You ever hear of Bill Clinton and his "It depends on what is, is" in a court of law? c.i.