I am done dueling with you. I have made some valid points (supported by good sources) on the financing of capital punnishment that you have ignored while continuing to support your side of the story. To continue to devote my time to this is pure insanity. I am out!!!!

SSG Doody

there is one website i will try to look for again, for you which talks about how the American gov't spent 26 million dollars on Timothy McVeigh's legal defense.

Yes, it should, and it should not cost near so much either, 1.3 Million to execute someone, a firing squad costs what, $.50 per shooter, seems simple enough to me, and less torturous than watching the doc prepare the needle, stab you, and wait for death, firing squad is 3 seconds, and gone.

Well, I live in Utah which still uses firing squad. So actually, its still in use.

My opinion on the matter is a lot less complicated. If you can't play nice you can't play at all. That's the underlying thing, isn't it? Its putting that idea into practice that creates the dilema.

But I'd have to be pretty damn sure that someone was guilty. And I'm not talking about situations that were self-defense but are still punished. Like a wife who gets beaten nearly to death repeated. I think she deserves a medal for killing a piece of crap like that.

The US justice system, together with modern forensics, can provide a much more reliable system of proof that ever before in history.

I'll say outright, if I'm the one that went and murdered somebody, I say just kill me!! I'd rather have that than spend decade after decade locked up. But that' me I guess. For people who admit to murder, want to die and they get some human rights group trying to press the matter; I believe in the murderer's right to tell them to piss off and leave it alone.

The death penalty is a bit harsh when you cannot 100% guarantee guilt I dread to think how many innocent people have been sent to their executions - perfectly legally - but incorrectly. Their must have been loads. Of course, the proof of guilt thing may become easier as technology exists.

Lets just think a minute though - a murderer can still prove to be an asset in the right circumstances. Did not most sides of WWII put some severe criminals into uniform and send them off to one front or another? Could this approach not be considered again?

I am a firm believer in conscription (of sorts). I reckon that if a criminal is awarded a custodial sentence then he/she should be put to work for his community/country as if conscripted instead of just languishing in a prison (Hotel?) watching bloody television, smoking fags and generally having a good time - which is what appears to be happening. They are just a drag on the ration strength - and should be made to earn his keep properly and - as a bonus - perhaps learn to respect other peoples lives and property - in the same way that most decent human beings do.

Right - sorry about that - Rant over - I promise

As long as the evidence is strong enough, then death sentence is ok othervise life sentence.

The truth is that they (lifers) are a much, much greater burden to society than a benefit. They are masters of frivilous lawsuits, as they have nothing to lose. So are people on death-row. Both should be severely limited and/or regulated on this right.

My viewpoint cannot account for the fact that absolute certainty is seldom ever assured. Its an impossibility to offer such a guarantee, but modern forensics can be extremely precise. Science will improve it even more as time goes on. But lets consider that wrongly convicted cases are extremely rare. Nothing even approaching 1% of cases.

The thing with incorrectly convicted cases are that the truth doesnt come out for months, year, or after the person's dead.

i'm not really sure I can vote on this one honestly because I have never had a member of my family killed. I know that if somone killed one of my beautiful children I would want them to pay the ultimate price.

It's always an eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
A life for a life.

Ancient and trusted truth.