@Shevar: There are situations of self defence when killing a human being is acceptable. I doubt you'd argue about that.

You might extend this argument to the point where a society does have the right or the duty to defend itself from a pending danger to its members. Protection of the individuals and their rights and posessings are the main goals of civil societies. And yes, I am aware that this possible path of arguement can perfectly be used to excuse any offensive war. It is usually the reasoning behind preemptive strikes. But let's stay with individuals instead of countries. Society has the duty to protect its members from individuals endangering them.

However, if a death penalty is the only means a society has, can be discussed.

For sure it does eliminate even the theoretical chance of escape and repetition of the crime. Thus the threat is removed permanently. The job of protection is performed to the best degree. It is of no meaning from this perspective, if the threat had a tough childhood, mental deseases or whatever - it is a threat, it is removed.

Usually the problem with death sentences is the danger of mistakes. A life-sentence or alike can be undone (though hardly compensated after let's say 10 years in prison), a death penalty can't. That's what usually keeps me from being in favour of them.

There is no doubt here. The danger of repetition is given. Society must protect itself. If the society in question decides, a prison is sufficient to secure safety, that is their choice.

"bunch of bleeding heart liberal pussies. the death penalty is just, economical, and efficient. I dont see why we should pay 3 million dollars to lock this monster up for the rest of his life. "

I don't see where YOU are ever going to pay taxes that keeps this man alive, I am however going to pay taxes that keeps this man alive. In norway, almost ALL people are against the death penalty, and for 21 years being the maximum sentence. So when EVERYONE in norway agrees, I don't see what say you have in the matter. The injured party here is norwegian society, it is norwegian society that should hold the power to forgive and the power to give a smaller punishment than what you would prefer.


HOW EXACTLY is it to be a pussy to NOT kill a man? I think it takes more courage to be able to keep self restraint and think about the situations rationally, rather than letting your feelings run away with you. It takes more courage to do what one believes to be right, rather than become scared and attack anything that looks like a threat.

"rather than become scared and attack anything that looks like a threat"

This man doesn't look like a threat, he IS a threat. The fact that he may not even be imprisoned his entire life lends to only embolden those who wish to kill as he did. Sick individuals need to be dealt with in sick ways. It's the only language they understand. He killed 77 people. That's an atrocity. He doesn't deserve a simple death, he deserves torture and torment.

those are very few people and they will not get emboldened by the lack of death penalty. If you are a person that considers killing 50+ people, then death penalty will not stop you from trying.

On the other hand, people have committed murders in hope of avoiding the death penalty (killing witnesses etc).

I really don't think having death penalty will stop more murders than it will create. That is the main reason I am against capitol punishment.


I like to remind people that are for killing pedophiles that when a pedophile eventually do rape a child, you want the punishment to be small enough so that it is better for the pedophile to let the child live and get maybe 5-10 years, than murder the child to increase the chances of getting away with the crime. Ultimatly I feel punishment is there to protect future victims, rather than to punish wicked individuals.

I guess I haven't been clear enough. I want TELEVISED TORTURE, not the death penalty.

TELEVISED TORTURE FTW, that is something we can all get behind.

I can't think of a better deterrent. FTW indeed.

I'm for the death penalty in some extreme cases but I worry about where to draw the line.

instead of killing or torturing them, I would just "donate" these people to science or medicine.

One person can save over 6 people's lives: they can harvest 1 heart, 2 kidneys, 1 liver, 1 pancreas, lungs but also improve many other people's lives by using their bone marrow, skin, cornea's, blood, bone grafts etc.

so I guess Thrax wouldn't pay for a real version of the hunger games then?

I like the donation idea Jurg.