Shotgun

I think even an atheist can agree that faith or belief in God can positively (or in some cases, negatively) affect one's life, regardless of whether said God actually exists or not. As a non-believer myself, I'm willing to accept that someone else's belief in God has improved his life. Of course, many people can improve their lives without any kind of religious belief; everyone is different.

While it would be ideal to never wrongfully convict someone, I would hope that there would be a way to exonerate someone either from LWOP or death row if it did come to light that the conviction was wrong. And, of course, being exonerated is not the same as being paroled. No, there will never be a way to eliminate this possibility. Death penalty or no death penalty. Some people will commit crimes that there will be no possible way to prove and therefore no way to convict/punish these people.

Your morals allow you to be OK with legal kidnapping but not with legal murder. I see no reason to try to talk you out of feeling that way. I think a lot of difference in opinion stems from how we would personally feel in the situation. If I was a convicted criminal facing the two options, I would definitely be hoping for the death penalty, because I see life in prison as a fate worse than death. And with the suicide rate in prison being higher than the general population (even with far less means to commit suicide), I'm guessing there are a lot of inmates who feel that way too. And just to be clear, I don't buy into the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" BS. (When I was on a jury, I would get so annoyed any time anyone would use that line.) If I did, I would be saying the criminals in the OP should be raped, doused with gasoline, and set on fire for punishment. But no, I am suggesting a humane execution, which is the opposite of what they did to their victims. And BTW, when I was on the jury for a capital murder trial, I was one of the jury members who voted against the death penalty in that particular case. I do believe the death penalty should be reserved for certain extreme cases (which don't necessarily even need to involve killing someone), and this wasn't one of those cases.

I'm gonna do a Coreece and post a youtube video in reply: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI Pearl Jam's "Do the Evolution." Sorry about the ad, but it's worth it. "I'm the first mammal to wear pants."

Very nice. If your intent is to avoid having a rational discussion.

Well, yes. There IS that pesky qualifier of 'lawful' in there. Laws trump morals, eh? Do you think it is moral to keep someone captive (imprisoned) for the rest of his life, with no possibility of release?

If I kill someone for the fun of it, it is called murder. Killing a convicted criminal using the most humane method possible is not murder. No, the criminals in the OP raped and killed three people with a violent death. Sentencing them to the death penalty is not sinking to their level.

Oh, OK. So if I build a jail in my house and keep someone in it against his will, I shouldn't go to prison for that. Because it would be hypocritical of the government to put me in prison for imprisoning someone else. Edit to add: And no, Remi, I'm not accepting volunteers.

That one isn't quite as disturbing. But in both of these cases, I'm thinking the opposite of, "I'll have what he's having." Yikes, aren't drugs supposed to be fun???

Man, this story makes me sick, but I keep reading about it anyway. Something is wrong with me.

I doubt that will be the case. Most people who have been thinking about jumping will probably realize that that is not the norm, while at the same time it might increase the dangerous/cool factor. Before I made my first jump, the only "skydiving" I had ever seen was in the movie Fandango, and that didn't exactly make it look safe. And, well, it's not 100% safe, and people should realize that before going on a tandem.

if he wasn't on the wrong team.

Am I the only one here who is disturbed by this???

Or maybe they're not legal drugs: http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/733144--bath-salts-to-blame-in-miami-zombie-cannibal-attack

From what I've read, it refers to various legal designer drugs that apparently have some sort of stimulant effect. I've heard various things on the news, most of them talking about the "new LSD," which I assume is one of these newer drugs and not actually LSD. But I don't think they actually know yet what (if anything) the guy was on.

As I've said, I don't think we're sending out that message. Most people who kill are not even eligible for the death penalty; most just go to prison, along with other violent criminals.

I would argue that sending someone to life in prison is "wishing suffering upon someone." Any kind of punishment could be looked at as "revenge." I think the only truly good arguments against the death penalty are that an innocent person could be executed, and that it is too expensive (and to lower the expense would probably only end up with more errors in the system).

OK, that makes sense. I assumed it was a nickname, but I was wondering why anyone would want to call it that. Makes Colorado gun owners sound like they're sitting at home waiting for an excuse to shoot someone. But in this story, I agree the homeowners had every right to shoot the intruder.

Does Colorado really have a "Make My Day" law, or is that just a nickname for their castle law? http://news.yahoo.com/woman-shot-colorado-homeowner-face-trespass-charges-211625176.html;_ylt=A2KJjbxxcsFPdT0AoWjQtDMD

That's a pretty logical reason to be against it. Along with the seemingly unavoidable expense involved. Of course, I don't want to see an innocent person spending the rest of his life (or a huge part of it) in prison either. So I think whether we abolish the death penalty or not, we need to try to make the system as error-free as possible, or at least err on the side of innocence. I would much rather see a guilty person walk free than see an innocent person convicted.

Apparently, a lot of people think that killing is "SOOOO bad," that they are against the death penalty even for people who have committed atrocious crimes. And I don't think it's about a "need to kill because of killing." I don't think that most people who kill (George Zimmerman, for example) should be subject to the death penalty.

While I don't agree with the bill, the article did make me wonder: Is there any way to deal with libel when it comes from anonymous Internet postings?

I guess I don't see it as a means to teach someone to not kill. I see it (in theory) as a practical means to remove someone who has proven himself as a huge danger to society. And, as I mentioned before, I think it should be reserved for only absolutely provable and absolutely heinous crimes. I am one of the least hateful and least vengeful persons ever. Sometimes I am disturbed by how much empathy I have for criminals. So I think you're wrong in thinking that anyone who supports the death penalty is full of hate and anger. (Of course, as I also stated earlier, I would personally find life without parole a harsher punishment than death, though obviously that is a matter of opinion.) That being said, I believe it will be on the ballot in CA this November to abolish CA's death penalty. And I will likely vote yes - to change all death penalty sentences to life without parole. Because, while I support it in theory, there seems to be no efficient way to carry it out, so having the death penalty here does nothing but cost taxpayers a ridiculous amount of money.

"Life without parole" can be just as vengeful (or even more so) than the death penalty. "Throw him in a hole," sounds vengeful to me. The decision for either one needs to be a rational, unemotional decision. Any conviction/punishment needs to be.

Just curious... Do you think most people should have the right to "stand their ground," even if that might involve taking someone's life? Do you think we had the right to kill Osama bid Laden, or any of the other "terrorists" we've killed? I realize these are different situations, but I'm curious what your answer is.