As per the Constitution, I am perfectly happy to let each state control the death penalty, and how they administer it.

It isn't a federal issue.

If this is what you want in California, than go for it.

I'm all for beheadings. Lethal injection is just ridiculous.

As long as you're revisiting the death penalty, you might want to add "quick" to the list of requests. Some inmates wait for over a decade on death row.

The convicting Jury should make up said firing squad.

If the convicting jury were required to make up the required firing squad, that would significantly narrow the jury pool.

It might be good for morale in the military to let them practice on a live target. Kim Jong-Un just took out his defense minister with an anti-aircraft gun.

Plus we can use this opportunity to teach the children the importance of state power over human life.

Take the condemned (and a CNN crew) to a grade school and have the Muppets dance in and hand out small penknives to the kids; then guide their little hands as they stab and cut teeny slices out of him.

We'll call it a "teachable moment".

The problem arises with forcing a person to represent the whole of the society in carrying out the deed...

It doesn't matter if a person is trained to fire a weapon, even soldiers feel the weight of killing... how much moreso the taking of not an enemy life, but a citizen, now matter how vile.

It's a problem now, it will be one in the future regardless of the method.

And that isn't even dealing with the question of the state having the ability to remove your life.

Also? the purpose served by the penalty doesn't deter, and costs an obscene amount of money.

I think it can be concluded this is a failed experiment, but there are those who require revenge, and it is they who keep it going IMHO.

The reason the death penalty is so expensive is the appeals process.

While I think the death penalty should be expanded to include other crimes, I also think it should be limited to cases of video proof or a minimum of two eyewitnesses.

Doing so would reduce the number of cases and therefore appeals, and make it more cost effective

"While I think the death penalty should be expanded to include other crimes, I also think it should be limited to cases of video proof or a minimum of two eyewitnesses."

Eye witness testimony, and video proof isn't as reliable as you think it is.

DNA and other circumstantial evidence is usually much better.

Of course we have one cop killer in jail who actually confessed, but people still want to believe that he is innocent.

If they want painless, get a cheap motorcycle helmet. Rip out the lining and replace it with plastic explosive. Place on the head of the condemned, duck behind some armor plate, and trigger the detonator. He'll be incapable of feeling anything before nerve impulses can propagate. And no special skills are required.

But blowing someone's head off is messy - and avoiding messes seems to have been the real motivation behind all the changes in the death penalty.

Why shouldn't the state have the power to end the life of someone who commits atrocious crimes against its other citizens? Protecting its citizens is an actual job of government. Unless you are going to drop people in a hole, feed them through a slot, and have them go insane for however many years it takes for them to die, these people are still a threat to prison guards, medical personnel, and others forced to come in contact with them. I'm all for the death penalty, think it should be handled quickly, and more publicly than it is. Right now, it's nebulous possibility. So you are right, as it stands it's not much of a deterrent. But it still provides some protection to prison and medical workers, once the guy is dead.

I think more crimes deserve the possibility of the death penalty.

When talking about the harm to the person taking the life you have to consider the alternatives. There is harm to the guard who confines someone for the rest of their life. And there is harm to the inevitable new victims when society just decides to not punish some crimes.

Similarly when you talk about the cost of the death penalty you have to admit that those costs are self imposed and not really part of the death penalty itself. We could limit appeals and execute after one year and it would be much cheaper than lifetime incarceration. It is like those who argue that nuclear power is not cost effective because the regulatory burden is so high to build a single power plan.

As for deterrence. There are very few repeat offenders after the death penalty. So it deters those it is imposed on if not others. As for deterring others, does life in prison deter more or less than the death penalty? I don't know, but I expect it is about the same with a lower rate of recidivism. Some things can't be deterred.

"I'm all for the death penalty, think it should be handled quickly"

Because we need to get revenge - even if it's on the wrong person.

Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death

No system is perfect Gog. You feel that a 4% false positive is too high? I honestly thought it was higher than that but that is what your link claims.

And many people who support the death penalty don't do so for revenge. That is a false characterization.

"No system is perfect Gog."

Then let's arrest someone you love and frame him/her and have a quick execution.

When we start marching the big international banksters to the guillotine, maybe we'll finally get their attention.

The schools do a less than 100% perfect job of educating our kids. Obviously they must be closed Gog. People get hurt in police custody that should not. Obviously the police must be abandoned. Sometimes power plans malfunction damaging people, wild life, and land. The only safe solution is to ban all electrical generation. Doctors make mistakes. People die. Medicine must be disbanded.

When you demand perfection or nothing you are being unreasonable.

"Then let's arrest someone you love and frame him/her and have a quick execution."

Let's just take your ridiculous premise to its glorious end and just embrace anarchy. Why arrest anybody or have any justice system at all? Because somebody at some point will be wrongfully convicted. Of course, somebody you love might be butchered by some piece of human refuse and then you will want them put to death and your argument will change.

"When you demand perfection or nothing you are being unreasonable."

Make sure you set that straw man on fire after you stand him up.

Gog I'd volunteer to BE the wrongly executed, if it means we could line up kiddie rapists, murderers, torturers, etc and kill them quickly, after 1 quick appeal. I'd take that one for the team of humanity.

It's not revenge. It's (or should be, if done right) preventing future crime, from the deceased if from no one else. Plus, let's call it a cosmic balancing of the scales: some actions are so heinous, one simply must lose ones life for committing them. Blowing up kids at a marathon, for example, qualifies IMO. That level of brutality simply demands the lose of their own life-not for revenge, but because nothing else answers it. We put down dogs that kill people. We don't keep them caged for life. Why do less for humans, who make a conscious decision to be cruel and kill, knowing the possible consequences.

I hate nothing more than people who argue so-and-so shouldn't be executed, even through they were sentenced to, because they found religion in prison and are good people now. Great. Awesome. I'm truly glad for them. But you still have to pay for your actions on this earth.

Let's start a campaign to get these exonerated people back to death row, ASAP. Who cares if they're innocent? The were convicted!

There's only 329 to date. Should be easy.

But we need to hurry and slaughter everyone else on Death Row before someone else turns up innocent!

Once that's done let's go over to the Innocence Project and shut it down. Pesky little bastards with their "truth" and "justice", like it's the American Way or something.

'Make sure you set that straw man on fire after you stand him up.'

Then show you are reasonable Gog. What is an acceptable rate of error for you? You've already said 4% is far to high. So what is the limit? And 0% is not reasonable.

'Make sure you set that straw man on fire after you stand him up.'

Then show you are reasonable Gog. What is an acceptable rate of error for you? You've already said 4% is far to high. So what is the limit? And 0% is not reasonable.

Posted by: Ben at May 18, 2015 6:23 PM

Ben, it will be a moving target. First zero executions will be the goal.

After that is will be no life in prison, Up next, a ten year max sentence for even the worst crimes.

All in the name of the non victims demonstrating to the victims of crime, and the rest of us, what an enlightened and progressive country we are.

I recognize that Isab. That is why my list of the ridiculous was no different from Gog's. He needs to admit that he is plain against the death penalty. And not because mistakes happen but for the real reason.

Mistakes always happen. And Gog's position is no different than 'Zero Tolerance' school administrator's.

"He needs to admit that he is plain against the death penalty. "

I am against the death penalty.

I do not believe that our government overlords are infallible.

I do not believe that the 329 people exonerated by DNA evidence should have been punished anyway.

If we are known by the company we keep, congratulations. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea still have the death penalty. And who could criticize those countries for human rights abuses?

Thanks for finally being honest Gog. What you just said is a defensible position even if I don't agree with you. But trying to pretend a number between 1-4% is significant just doesn't cut the mustard.