[CaptainHaplo]

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.