The death penalty does not deter crime. There is more crime nowadays because there are more people. The death penalty has higher costs (contrary to popular belief) and there is no reason to kill another human being.

who cares?

Some crimes require the death penalty for justice.

How so Panthers? Is life in prison without parole to good for them?

"The death penalty has higher costs" - No it doesn't. consider that if you didn't terminate those people, they would still have to be kept in the same level of security prisons, just for longer.
It costs a lot in the US because people spend over a decade on death row. It doesn't take that long.

Ah, yes, I am looking at it from a US perspective where the death penalty situation is terrible. Like you say, most death row inmates will spend at least a decade in prison before actually being put to death. Plus the court costs for death row cases are exponentially higher than those that do not involve the death penalty. I will not pretend to know how the death penalty is administered in other countries. So I guess I am arguing more about how the US system is flawed, than the actual moral debate about putting people to death.

Furthermore, the US death penalty system is random. Someone who killed 20 people could get life in prison, while someone who killed one person could receive the death penalty. It is also more likely for minorities to receive the death penalty, and more likely that the suspect will be put to death if the victim is white or female.

In that case I agree. I am from the UK, and personally I am for the death penalty. Not saying it should be used even, merely it should be available.

Realistically, I can't see how appeals and the like can be dragged out for over 5 years.

There is another issue on the moral side: what can be said of a jury that are prepared to put someone to death?

They're cold, heartless, ruthless murderers?

Life in prison without parole is a light sentence for someone who raped and killed children. There are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is the right course of action.

death is an easy way out for some, rather than having to live with the consequences of your actions for as long as you live.

Some guys who would rather turn their gun on themselves than face societies justice.

when comparing the US to other countries we often look at europe
FYI "The death penalty has been totally abolished in almost all European countries"(48 out of 50) with one of those counrties having abolished the death penalty during peace-time.

to those who believe there is a place in modern society for the death penalty, can i ask which methods you approve of (from this list)?

Decapitation · Electrocution · Firing squad · Gas chamber · Hanging · Lethal injection · Shooting · Stoning · Torture · Nitrogen asphyxiation (proposed method) · Breaking wheel · Boiling · Flaying · Crushing · Slow slicing · Disembowelment · Sawing · Necklacing · Dismemberment · Burning · Impaling · Crucifixion

- on a side note and a historical prespective, the leaders of the 1916 rising (the blood sacrifice which resulted in an independant Ireland) were executed by firing squad, a punishment reserved for enemy combitants - previous rebels were hung like common criminals.

also only 35 of 50 US states practice the death penalty.

you can compare the crime rate in Europe over the past 30 years to the crime rate in the US before claiming that the worse the punishment the lower the crime rate.

Orathaic: do you mean that 1 of the 2 that haven't abolished it completely?
To the best of my knowledge asphyxiation & lethal injection are the least painful?

yeah, one of the two, Latvia may still apply the death penalty during war time.

Belarus still has the death penalty for some crimes - and is the one state in Europe which came out of Soviet domination still wanting to be a part of russia - definitely the most backward ountry in Europe, and least likely to join the EU in the next two decades.

Interesting, although I think that in the very unlikely occasion of a symmetric war several other European countries would probably restore it.

May I ask where you got this list of European countries from? I find different organisations change the boundaries of Europe as they see fit!

"Yes, but just for murder, and then only first degree murder with really bad circumstances. The federal government should be able to do it for treason or war crimes or other things, but almost never really do it."

Invictus, that would make the death penalty "unusual" as in "cruel and unusual." So... back you your Constitution redoubt, that means we'd better not be executing anyone as long as we "never really do it."

And why do you want it so bad anyway? Don't tell me deterrence because studies show that it does not have any effect as a deterrent.

Gay marriage:

All I'll say is: I'm straight but not narrow. The "unnatural" or "corrupts marriage" argument is nuts, just as the "it's unbiblical" argument is nuts. You don't have to like it... but really is it going to bother you THAT much? It's not going to make gay people go away or anything.....

And as to whether they were born gay:

I have a serious question, here we go:

I know two twins. One is lesbian, the other is straight. They are identical twins. Does this not disprove the argument that homosexuality comes from a person's genes?

That only shows that genes are not the only cause of homosexuality.

@denis - ahh, the self-righteousness of youth.

When arguing with your elders, you should probably research your statements and find out if your statements of fact are, essentially, fact-based.

"A. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, and that belief has been upheld through society for thousands of years"

Bzzz! Sorry, one strike. Marriage has changed over and over again over thousands of years. Polygamy has been VERY common through the millenia. Did you watch the movie 300? Do you know WHY the (real-life) 300 warriors that slowed the invasion were so loyal and willing to stand together? Because they were pair-bonded, and they loved each other. No, the movie didn't make that obvious. But that's what actually happened.

"B. Men are not supposed to have sex with men. Because it's immposible and even if it was possible the point of sex isn't there as men can't birth. So I don't think nature would allow men to be born gay."

You're not talking about love, or marriage, or even sex. You're talking about reproduction. If you haven't noticed, reproduction doesn't require marriage, just as marriage doesn't require reproduction. Would you make it illegal for a man to marry an infertile woman? I have some families full of adopted children I'd like you to meet. Is it illegal for a man to have a vasectomy and be married? Have you noticed a number of children being born out of wedlock?

Some day some nice girl is going to offer you some kind of sexual activity that doesn't involve intercourse - or even uses contraception. By your logic, you would turn it down, because sex for any reason other than reproduction is "immposible".

You've already told the forum that your parents are very rigid and have strong religious beliefs which you don't share. If you truly want to think for yourself, you probably should take some time to explore the world around you before declaring strong opinions. OTOH, it's much easier to simply parrot the teachings of the intolerant.

@orathiac You forgot the blood eagle.

@Thuc: i believe the best science suggests homosexuality is developmental. A specific change which occurs in the womb affecting brain development - likely a hormonal imbalance which result in a certain part of the brain developing 'as if' it were a member of the opposite sex - thus we are hardwired to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, and some people are born with their wires crossed. Though i may be wrong about this, i haven't kept up with recent sexuality studies.

@Figles: replied via pm.

jbalcorn +1.

Well said jbalcorn.

The death penalty has a huge flaw. It cannot be reversed after it is carried out. How many people have now been released due to new evidence of their innocence after 10, 20, or 30 years in jail. At least they can be given some compensation.

I don't like capital punishment because there is a possibility that an innocent person could be falsely accused and executed. This may be extremely rare but I think it is a crime worse than any other.

better to let a guilty person root in prison than execute an innocent person.

Which justice stated "That it is better that ten guilty men go free than to have one innocent man falsely imprisoned" or someting to that effect?

It might not be as rare as we think. The state now days has a lot of ways of proving a persons guilt that are hard to refute without expensive independent testing. Also to many people buy into the "infallibility" of crime labs and experts thanks to TV.

@Orthaic: A picture from kabul in the 1950's and same spot now. http://www.irintech.com/x1/images/jean/40_yrs_paghman_gardens_kabul_afg.jpg Also take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar_Gah#Development Until the Soviet invasion Afghanistan's infrastructure was developing pretty successfully with many projects dams/canals/irrigation projects/roads/airports etc being funded in competition between East and West. Obviously all that development work stopped and then was regressed by about 1,000 years in the past 30 years of war. The provision of electricty, water, schools, roads etc is just as important to securing the long term success of that country as defeating the Taliban militarily. But that means that we have to stay there for as long as it takes. Afghanistan is the true tragedy of the war on Iraq because it took everyone's eye off the ball and allowed things to stagnate. I have to say I am a supporter of the 'surge' in Afghanistan and personally think the troops should not be given any pull out date.

to tilmletokill above:
i don'nt think people was more afraid to kill in the past 20 or 30 years tha today:
in 1945 nazis kille some millions of jews.
in ancient times people was used to kill entire towns during war.
death penalty could be o.k. if u'r totally sure there r some people worse than others (something i just cannot believe), and on the other hand death penalty can lead to fatal errors or corrupt law distorsions. i've heard of a pair of cases where mexican migrants in u.s. r condemned to death penalty without enough investigations just cos they r "latins",
finally, i think death penalty just favours revenge feelings

Afghanistan in 2001 was in about the same shape as it had been in 1901.
So yes development is important and your link to Lashkar Gah is, i think, an example of things improving since then - perhaps a benifit of the US invasion.

I agree jobs and development are the only way to prevent Afghanistan from falling apart, and that is the only way in which anti-western terrorism will be crushed there (and what TMW said about just catching and killing bin laden is an example of his brand of stupidity - that brand which has made America the fool of the modern world...)