All people agreeing? I do not. I refuse to make an absolute statement about it. In most occasions I find it morally wrong. And on a few occasions I find it morally right. I reject to make "kill!" or "do not kill!" a total, undisputable absolute, because although the decision to kill causes a final, irreversible consequence, ethical assessement of it nevertheless is subjective and anything but infinite, final, and absolute. The deed itself, and what you think about it - are two different things.

I found it horrible and felt very bad for some weeks after I accidentally almost killed a trainee during training two years ago, and hurt him badly. I told the story back then. As a result I quit in that job after just a short time, for it really shook me. It was truly a training-accident.

Nevertheless I can imagine situations when I accept to take somebody's life intentionally, and not having a bad conscience afterwards. However, I do not seek nor wish for such a situation in my life.

It is a circumstance-thing.

Well I'll be damned, this is pretty much how i see things.

There is a young man here being charged with 3 counts of 2nd degree murder in a drunk driveing case.

To stiff of charges you say ?

I do whole-heartedly agree in the idea of a harsh labor camp (something just short of gulag style). However, understanding how that won't happen, I believe there are certain crimes so brutal where the criminal has forfeit his/her humanity. Such a crime is the rape and murder of an 8 MONTH old girl. To lock this person up acknowledges his right to live, and he should have none.I do not believe that killing, under all circumstances, is morally wrong. I don't believe that anyone here has said that.

Further, I don't see the death penalty as "revenge" - I believe, properly applied, that it is justice.

I don't believe you can reduce the argument to teaching one's children that all killing is wrong, as you're suggesting. For instance, if someone broke into a home and threatened a family, preemptively killing that person isn't morally wrong.

Also, the state absolutely has the right to make certain decisions over life and death, as empowered by the people of that state. War is a common application of this. A police commander ordering a sniper to shoot someone holding hostages is another.

In conclusion, to simply say that "killing is morally wrong" oversimplifies the subject a great deal.

There are absolutely complete certainties in life. Either something happened or it didn't. The key is to make our policies incredibly stringent in order to assure that accidents don't happen.

The fact is, just because that we may have been wrong previously does not neccessarily mean we're going to be wrong in the future. Furthermore, I do not in any way condone leniency for REAL criminals because of mistakes made regarding innocents.

Let's say that a murder was caught on several different surveillance cameras, and the perp is ID'ed through that and fingerprint analysis, along with witness identification. I'd say that would be pretty airtight.

Well, sure. But how good is the resolution of the camera, are you sure the fingerprinting was all done right, and witnesses ... well, we all know them...

Now, here's a pipe dream of mine: How about a system where the prosecutor and judge are held personally responsible after recommending / sentencing* a death penalty?** If the case is somehow overturned on appeal (or massively reduced, say from Capital down to not just life imprisonment, but something like 5 years or less), and the ex-convict has already gone on the shock chair, then the prosecutor and judge is tried for homicide (because then that is what it is) - probably voluntary manslaughter would be the closest charge. The State can't really be punished for such mistakes, but the individuals most responsible still can. They probably won't get death itself, but they will be found guilty (there's no doubt they did it), and the penalty is mitigated similar to a person who killed with mistaken will.

*Yes, it is generally the jury that decides whether one is guilty, but AFAIK it is generally the judge that decides on the sentencing.

Basically, the judge and prosecutor's pleas will consist of mitigation and re-justifying exactly why they believed the ex-convict was guilty and why he was so guilty he deserved the death penalty, now on the "wrong" side of the curve. The final penalty depends on how far off they are. If it is clear the case just wasn't that good ...

*I've always had an opinion where prosecutors and judges (including juries) should really (in a deontological sense) be held responsible for any cases they get wrong (after all, someone clearly got hurt by your mistake here, and it clearly is no passion-of-the-moment thing). Of course, that quickly runs into the utilitarian problem that they will probably start to be very reluctant to prosecute / convict even clear criminals for fear they'll be wrong, so it is not really a practical idea, but that problem is minimized if such is brought only to cases involving extreme punishment.

OK, that's a pretty unrealistic idea. However, when you recommend the death penalty, will you STILL honestly risk it if the system above is active, and you will be held responsible (and probably seriously punished) if it turns out (as proven by a appeal court) you are wrong?

IMO, if you aren't, then you haven't even really convinced yourself it is necessary in a particular case.

@Skybird and Aramike

I think I didn't express myself properly before. I meant if you tell your kids that the sentenced person has done something evil by killing someone how do you tell them that killing this very person is a just act? I think the killing of someone can only be a last resort if no other option guarantees the safety of the population (emergency killing in a hostage situation, getting rid of cruel dictators who you can't get in any different way, etc).
Remember by executing someone you are doing the same thing that the criminal did. Maybe in a more "humane" way (if there is something like that) but the result is the same nonetheless.
Besides there is still the problem that not all cases are crystal clear. Mistakes WILL happen as they happened before. Maybe not so many but still I would say that even just one innocent in the death row is one too much for supporting this kind of punishment.

Just my 2c.

There's a huge moral difference between the criminal act of murder and an execution based upon the preponderance of the evidence as set forth in the guidelines created by a society (the same guidelines that would allow killing in an emergency situation).

Saying that it would be difficult to to teach the difference to a child is misleading as you already suggested that you COULD teach the diffence in certain cases. You're just fading the distinction in the circumstance that supports your beliefs - which is no more right or wrong than any other circumstance, including emergency actions.

Personally, however, I find it difficult to see how you can find a parallel being a criminal killing someone and society executing that person after a trial in front of a jury of their peers, an exhaustive appeals process, all according to the rules set in place by that society. From where I stand, there is no moral equivocation there. First of all, the criminal was proactive in committing the crime - society is REACTIVE in committing the punishment - which is a risk the murderer accepts should he decide to remove another person's life.

I have no problem telling my children that bad people are killed because they have done bad things. It is the REASON, not the ACTION that determines morality.

One must understand that there's a huge difference between what can earn a conviction now versus in previous years. If there is any doubt at all about someone's guilt, they shouldn't be convicted in the first place.

Also, we should consider real life rather than theory here. In states where there is the death penalty, it is not as though they are just going to town executing murderers. Rather, the punishment is typically reserved for the worst of the worst.

In addition, consider that (as far as I recall, and I may be completely wrong on this) the last person wrongly executed by the justice system in this country was in 1985, and "wrongly" is only an allegation. That means that person would have to have been convicted in the 60's or 70s. Surely we've made progress since then.

The death penalty as applied by the several states is only for capital crimes, where premeditation can be proven. No one is executed for self defense or so called crimes of passion.

There is currently federal law which permits the death penalty for those convicted of killing/murdering governmet employees. Beyond that death penalty cases are very rare.

The thing with labour camps as someone said is that you have to pay for them. Anyone who has committed a crime worthy of such extreme measures as the death penalty should just be snuffed out. Otherwise we have to pay for them to continue their sorry existence breathing air that would otherwise be used by normal people. I support the death penalty in certain circumstances, and such measures would only be taken in the case of a violent murder proven by substancial forensic evidence supported by witness statements... or a crime that whilst didn't kill the victem, left such traumatic phycological scars that the victem couldn't continue normal life. At present people in prison go back there because its a holiday camp, free gym's, good accomodation... they get f**king games consoles and plasma TV's now. There is no deterrance to crime. If people thought that they could be killed for commiting violient crime then they might bloody well think against it, and act like a civilised human being instead of the scum we have wondering our streets at the moment.

If you read again what I tried to express and gave examples for in post #10, you will see that I do not see it that much different than you do when talking of last resorts.

No. Motivation counts, and it is different motivations for the criminal, and the victim acting in self-defence, or the law enforcment or a judge acting according to the law.

Law also considers motivations. In German laws we have the conception of a crime committed for lower motives (= Verbrechen aus niederen Beweggründen), which means that the crime is considered to be even more serious than the same crime rated without that "seal of malice", and a more severe penalty must be spoken out - for example that early release from prison is explicitly ruled out, and any penalty must be the maximum allowed by law.

Also, state of mind and emotions matter in doing a deed, both legal and illegal. I would even say it matters most.

That is true, and I fully accept the argument ofr too many death penalties that have been proven to have been wrong - I haven given it myself in earlier debates over death penalty and showed some statistics (that can be easily found via Google). However, if you read again what I wrote, you see that I argued against the "death penalty", and that I gave a totally different understanding of when the execution of a criminal eventually is justifiable. Death as a regular penalty in cases of "ordinary" crime (to cut it short and not writing a long novel of explanation) I explicitly excluded. The two-word term "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself.

There is an appeals process.

they have X number of times to appeal their sentence and can serve X number of years in order for the defense to accumulate evidence which will clear their name.

Im not saying execute them right when the gavel bangs.

but there is no point in any of us paying millions of dollars to keep scum like this alive in a prison for 25 years.

I dunno GR. I don't think I'd really want cost to be a factor in sentencing.

Alright, lets me see if I can put it easy points so they can be dealt with in a way that doesn't require linguistic playings....

The death penalty is not - and never has been - a punishment that is successful to dissuade a criminal from committing his capital crime. Contrary to what some death penalty advocates try and sing - its simply not factual. Most who choose to murder have lost the capability to value their own life, and thus they fail to value the life of others.

One can make the argument that its INTENT is that - but its effectiveness can be shown to be nil in the face of history. Look at every treasonous act committed by people to overthrow nobility, and you can see that the death penalty has NEVER been successful as a deterrent.

Thats one argument off the table.

Next is the issue of "moral" authority to kill. Well, currently it resides in the State, put there by society. You might not like it, but you have the choice to be active and try to change it - or not. The State is empowered - by the people - to judge guilt or innocence through a process. That process is SUPPOSED to be blind - and while one could argue back or forth if it is or not, the moral authority comes from society - so don't blame the state for what you have allowed to be put into place. The state holds that mandate at the will of the people, and if you doubt it - look what happens when a state's citizenry speak on the issue - for or against. You see moratoriums put in place - or lifted - at the will of the people. The state simply applies the law - the people are responsible for it. Like it or not. So if you don't like the "blood on your hands", then do something about it. But claiming that a State lacks the authority to act on the will of its society is a false argument. Another one bites the dust...

Thirdly - the question of when or if a capital crime deserves the death penalty. Again - justice in its purest form is blind. Think of the statue - a woman, blindfolded - with scales. The cost to the victim - was their life ended. Justice is for the criminal to suffer the same as the victim. Call it an eye for an eye if you want - but it is how we - as society - have said we want justice to be served. Yet killing in the way the victim died is often horrendous. So, that often would call for cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, in the interest of justice with some mercy - though not absolvement - a criminals life is ended in a manner that is - most of the time - much more peaceful than that the victim had to endure. This is the definition of justice with mercy for society. Is it warranted? According to just about every moral system ever codified, yes.

Lastly you have the issue of the innocent that pay the ultimate price. I once was told by a friend who was a defense attorney - that he would rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail. That is a wonderful ideal, but we do not live in a utopian society. If we did, there would be no guilty - and all would be innocent - thus the question would be moot. So you have to consider not only the loss to the individual - but also to the rest of society if you allow 100 guilty to go free.

An innocent death is a tragedy. I recognize that and it saddens me to the core. Yet the DOJ's data says recidivism for violent felons was last closely tracked at 67.5%. So basically you let 100 murderers go to spare one innocent man - and guess what - you just killed 67 or 68 more people..... 1 innocent life - or 67? The system is NOT perfect, and should be reviewed regularly. However, the idea that the cost to society is higher to make a mistake and execute an innocent than it is to let murderers do free - is demonstratably flawed. I wish that my friend was around to argue the point, but one of the clients he got off on a murder charge later was responsible for his death....... So - its more than just statistics. He was a damned good man with a wife and kids - and didn't deserve to die just because he knew too much for a paranoid murderer to be comfortable sleeping at night.

After taking a deep breath - there is the final issue - the cost to society to keep these in prisons. The data a quick search showed was a study from Virginia - in which the amount was - per prisoner - $24,888 every year. Thats an average. Other states are likely similiar. That is more than the welfare cost for a single destitute person in society. See anything wrong with that? The fact that these people are going to continue to stay in jail - for the rest of their natural lives - and assuming a 3.5% annual inflation rate - in 20 years that amount totals 700k - in 40 years the cost to the taxpayers has now been 2.1 million. So its obvious that to continue to house a "lifer" is nothing but a wasted drain on the taxpayer's dime, that does no good. Contrast that with the cost of execution via lethal injection. Per the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - the 2007 cost was $86.08 - so the monetary cost of execution in a timely manner is obviously better than decades incarcerated.

Thus - the death penalty is a valid punishment, but only in the proper instances - and only if it balances the interest of justice for society regarding the common good as well as the rights of the innocent accused.

As I said - no system is perfect. We should reform ours.... but not take the death penalty off the table.