This is the last time I'm going to waste responding to your inane "arguements" on this topic.
Life = Life. Pretty simple to understand, even for you. It's too late for rehabilitation, irreversible damage is done to society.
"Life = Life" is arbitrary, neanderthalic, and simple-minded, not simple. Eye for an eye does not work outside of material goods. Killing one to avenge the killing of another doesn't provide any benefit to the offended party that they are entitled to, so what purpose does it actually serve that isn't served by a life sentence? The path of death should never be taken when there is an alternative. Pretty simple to understand, even for you.
As for rehabilitation, despite the fact that we don't have a system geared toward rehabilitation, there are still cases of rapists and murderers who have been rehabilitated. Carrying out the death penalty is doing damage to society in that it degrades our own government's and collective conscience's moral grounding.
You haven't made an arguement that it is needless.
It doesn't need to be done. Boy, that was tough.
We aren't doing any damage to society by removing a cancer that is someone who has shown the ultimate disrespects to a fellow human. Offering it the option to leech on society is not proving that execution is unjustified.
Your government showing that it will kill you if you do wrong is not in its best interests when it's trying to promote democratic ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and all that jazz.
Why should we be keeping them anywhere?
Why should we kill them?
So we are going to start seperating the populations of countries based on whether they actually are living up to par with the overall "status" of the country? Come on Dodens. That's grasping at straws.
I specifically said that most of the civilized world, and by that I mean the first world, does fine without capital punishment. Counting those who don't live in the civilized world in a statistical analysis of those who live in the first world is grasping at straws. I'm fairly sure that most of China and India are not considered the first world.
China is currently much more successful and more populous than Europe despite only being 1 country to 50 (and that is including Russia, which really shouldn't count as part of Europe) so I wouldn't really rely heavily on that argument if I were you.
It's amazing how blind you are to the actual point being made, which is that the death penalty is in no way beneficial to a society.
It obviously requires a serious look at the evidence, but upon determination of guilt, it isn't a decision the jury makes, but one the murderer/rapist made for himself when he committed the act.
Really? Actually I'm pretty sure what the rapist is deciding is "I'm going to rape this person," not "I'm going to have myself sentenced to death."
When I use the term swift, I do mean it in a relative way. Hell, 5 years would be considered swift compared to what we have now.
Plus, I am talking about the entire system for all crimes, not just the death penalty. Restitution would improve society, not create blocks of leeches learning more bad habits at society's expense while the victims sit in the same state the criminal left them.
There IS no restitution for violent crimes unless you quantify them monetarily. The justice system cannot be based on the emotional whims of those who are wronged, as they are in the least rational position to make a reasonable decision. The victim will still "sit in the same state" whether or not the criminal is dead, aside from some kind of emotional comfort, which is not true in all cases, and to which they're also not entitled.
Obviously not part of this thread so I won't press this any further.
