from where I stand the stance I see is some sort of worry about the vague possibility of getting the wrong guy- what about when it is certainly not the wrong guy?

*sigh*

Read my post. 1) Ineffective deterrent 2) Ineffective form of retribution 3) far more than vague possiblity of wrongful death (see MBC's stats). Pointless and imprecise.

I did read your post- I asked a different question, however I withdraw it. Pointless to proceed with it at this point.

It would not be ineffective deterrent if used quickly upon completion of the full course of the law.

Look- I am not all gung ho throwing parties when someone is executed. It's an unpleasant business- but I think if you start removing it completely you have a problem.

I have a headache after reading all that. I'd kill for some Advil right now.

That post is my answer. I'm against it period, partly because you can't draw a line between "positive" and "maybe", so it's not worth the risk. As for quick completeion, that's just not an option. Sure, if there was some magic way that we could be 100% sure, and whisk someone off to the gas chamber, then that's one thing. But it's not possible, and too many times, the lengthy appeals process exhonerates wrongly convicted people who would have been killed had the process been quicker. It's an impossible thing to solve. Speed it up, and the likelihood of making a mistake increases. Slow it down and the point becomes moot. So now you're just killing for the gratification of the victims' families which brings me to my third point, that it doesn't even satisfy that need.

I don't care if you catch the guy in the act and thus can be sure that he murdered someone. Murdering him in return is not right. Taking a human life is God's province alone. No war, no self-defense, no retailiation makes it right. It may be necessary to do so (in the instance of self-defense, for example), but necessity doesn't make it right.

So, my personal stance is not based on innocent people being executed (though they are), or whether the death penalty is a deterrent (it's not), or whether victims' families feel no closure (they generally don't), or whether it's more expensive to execute someone than to support them for life in prison (it is), or whether the death penalty is unfairly applied to poor people and people of color (it is). It's based on the fact that, according to my personal moral values, it's absolutely, positively morally wrong.

You and I are in total agreement, iSm.

So, do I win anything for "worst idea for a thread topic" ? ;)

No, it's ok. Just because GC doesn't want to read this or Neph is getting a little hot under the collar, does not mean you shouldn't post provocative threads.

When starting the LoT, we considered not having a "political" forum at all, as the conversations tend to veer from cool swankness. In the end, however, we decided that we would certainly not make it a highlight of these boards, but to deny any discussion of the real world would also be less than fully swanky.

I don't understand why people feel that beliefs have to be consistent - why can't I believe on thing in one situation and it's opposite in another? I hold many inconsistent beliefs - so?