The fact that someone murdered doesn't give you the right to murder them.

No, that right comes from the justice system that ensures that everyone gets a trial, judge and jury to prove they did not commit said crimes.

An eye for an eye will leave the world blind.

That's what brail is for. And it also ensures that said murderers don't kill again. I've yet to see an executed person kill somebody again...ever. Sounds 100% effective to me.

It's perfectly possible to punish them without sinking to their level.

You're wrong there. You think it's possible, but don't know the mind of a murderer unless you are one. What you deem 'punishm...

The fact that someone murdered doesn't give you the right to murder them.

No, that right comes from the justice system that ensures that everyone gets a trial, judge and jury to prove they did not commit said crimes.

An eye for an eye will leave the world blind.

That's what brail is for. And it also ensures that said murderers don't kill again. I've yet to see an executed person kill somebody again...ever. Sounds 100% effective to me.

It's perfectly possible to punish them without sinking to their level.

You're wrong there. You think it's possible, but don't know the mind of a murderer unless you are one. What you deem 'punishment' and what they deem punishment is probably a walk in the park. Maybe you should go to a super max prison for a 'tour' and see how 'reformed' some of those murderers are.

The law says people don't have the right to kill other people. That law isn't suspended when those people are in a jury. Murdering someone just makes you a murderer; regardless of whether the other person killed or not. And, as a murderer, that means the person that killed the murderer has to be killed as well, by your twisted logic; and so on and so on, until there is only one person left in the world, who must morally kill himself, because he's a murderer.

Locking someone in jail punishes them, and ensures they don't kill anyone else. It is unnecessary to murder another person to accomplish those goals.

And if you think Maximum security prison is a walk in a park, then why don't y...

The law says people don't have the right to kill other people. That law isn't suspended when those people are in a jury. Murdering someone just makes you a murderer; regardless of whether the other person killed or not. And, as a murderer, that means the person that killed the murderer has to be killed as well, by your twisted logic; and so on and so on, until there is only one person left in the world, who must morally kill himself, because he's a murderer.

Locking someone in jail punishes them, and ensures they don't kill anyone else. It is unnecessary to murder another person to accomplish those goals.

And if you think Maximum security prison is a walk in a park, then why don't you go visit it yourself; Spend a week there, and if you survive, you might have some idea of just how horrible it is to be a convicted murderer serving a life sentence.

If you think murdering people is such a good idea for punishment, then why don't you volunteer to kill the next person your government decides to murder? It should be really easy, because it's just justice, right?

Bullshit.

Of the 220 wrongful convictions in the U.S. that have been overturned based on DNA evidence, nearly 25% involved a false confession or false incriminating statements

Threats and coercion sometimes lead innocent people to confess, but even the calmest, most standardized interrogations can lead to a false confession or admission. Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled may be particularly vulnerable

Anyone can be dazed when confronted by police officers who claim to hold unshakable evidence of one's guilt. Some confess to crimes because they want to please authority figures or to protect another person. Some actually come to believe they are guilty, or confess to do penance fo...

Of the 220 wrongful convictions in the U.S. that have been overturned based on DNA evidence, nearly 25% involved a false confession or false incriminating statements

Threats and coercion sometimes lead innocent people to confess, but even the calmest, most standardized interrogations can lead to a false confession or admission. Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled may be particularly vulnerable

Anyone can be dazed when confronted by police officers who claim to hold unshakable evidence of one's guilt. Some confess to crimes because they want to please authority figures or to protect another person. Some actually come to believe they are guilty, or confess to do penance for some unrelated bad behavior.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-trainum24-2008oct24,0,7918545.story

How many people have been wrongly executed? There is too much uncertainty, to just kill people off. Keeping them in prison gives time to re-assess cases when better technology, legal procedures etc, can and may perhaps exonerate them. Executing people is, (contrary to popular belief), more expensive, than keeping them incarcerated. We have no right to kill people. If you believe in God, you should believe HE will do what is right, when the perp one day stands at the gates of Heaven, asking to come in, AFTER he has done his "mortal" time in jail here on Earth. If you don't believe in God, then killing people frees them of any punishment if they are executed, because they will just return to "...

How many people have been wrongly executed? There is too much uncertainty, to just kill people off. Keeping them in prison gives time to re-assess cases when better technology, legal procedures etc, can and may perhaps exonerate them. Executing people is, (contrary to popular belief), more expensive, than keeping them incarcerated. We have no right to kill people. If you believe in God, you should believe HE will do what is right, when the perp one day stands at the gates of Heaven, asking to come in, AFTER he has done his "mortal" time in jail here on Earth. If you don't believe in God, then killing people frees them of any punishment if they are executed, because they will just return to "nothingness" where there is no consciousness, remorse etc.

"Thou shalt not kill." I do not see any mitigating circumstances in that command, no matter how much it would serve our mortal desires for revenge, because that is what execution is. Revenge. Incarceration is our way, deciding over life and death should be left up to God. If you believe He is a just God, then you should be comforted by the fact, that justice WILL be done, without mistakes, when that time comes.

I live in MO. For a long time we were second behind Texas, we currently have 48 on death row. I have no problem with the state killing people on death row, just as I have no problem with a woman wanting to get an abortion. I've always said about abortion, "until you walk a mile in the woman's moccasins", you cannot know what causes her to want an abortion. You may not consider it a good enough reason, but you are not the one who has to live with the decision. I still think people opposed to the death penalty are not taking into account what has happened to the victim's family, they may not be the ideal family, but they can never replace the victim's place in the family. It will be a bl...

I live in MO. For a long time we were second behind Texas, we currently have 48 on death row. I have no problem with the state killing people on death row, just as I have no problem with a woman wanting to get an abortion. I've always said about abortion, "until you walk a mile in the woman's moccasins", you cannot know what causes her to want an abortion. You may not consider it a good enough reason, but you are not the one who has to live with the decision. I still think people opposed to the death penalty are not taking into account what has happened to the victim's family, they may not be the ideal family, but they can never replace the victim's place in the family. It will be a black hole as long as the family has memory of the victim.

Anyone have statistics on just how effective our judicial system has been in preventing murder by virtue of the example of executing convicted murderers? I did some research.

"Thorsten Sellin applied his combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods in an exhaustive study of capital punishment in
American states. He used every scrap of data that was available,
together with his knowledge of the history, economy, and social
structure of each state. He compared states to other states and
examined changes in states over time. Every comparison he made led him
to the “inevitable conclusion . . . that executions have no discernable
effect on homicide rates” (Sellin 1959, 34)...Sellin’s wor...

Anyone have statistics on just how effective our judicial system has been in preventing murder by virtue of the example of executing convicted murderers? I did some research.

"Thorsten Sellin applied his combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods in an exhaustive study of capital punishment in
American states. He used every scrap of data that was available,
together with his knowledge of the history, economy, and social
structure of each state. He compared states to other states and
examined changes in states over time. Every comparison he made led him
to the “inevitable conclusion . . . that executions have no discernable
effect on homicide rates” (Sellin 1959, 34)...Sellin’s work has been replicated time and time again, as
new data have become available, and all of the replications have
confirmed his finding that capital punishment does not deter homicide
(see Bailey and Peterson 1997, and Zimring and Hawkins 1986). These
studies are an outstanding example of what statistician David Freedman
(1991) calls “shoe leather” social research. The hard work is
collecting the best available data, both quantitative and qualitative.
Once the statistical data are collected, the analysis consists largely
in displaying them in tables, graphs, and charts which are then
interpreted in light of qualitative knowledge of the states in
question. This research can be understood by people with only modest
statistical background. This allows consumers of the research to make
their own interpretations, drawing on their qualitative knowledge of
the states in question.

See figure 1 at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1275 It compares from 1982 to 2002, Texas
executed 239 prisoners, California ten, and New York none. Hundreds of comparisons of this sort have been made, and they
consistently show that the death penalty has no effect."

So ones need for justice may wish for the execution but not as a deterrent. Want to save

I saw a show on TV once, where convicts joined a program that took otherwise unwanted shelter dogs bound for euthanasia, and turned them into guide dogs for the blind. It helped the convicts (someone to care for and love and have responsibility for and a sense of being needed and helping someone. It also made them less violent and more patient and compassionate) and it helped the dogs (they were saved and got homes) and it helped the blind (of course) but it also helps the community, because these people become productive members of society. Even if they had gotten life sentences, they still contributed positively. Programs like that should be encouraged instead of just killing people of, es...

I saw a show on TV once, where convicts joined a program that took otherwise unwanted shelter dogs bound for euthanasia, and turned them into guide dogs for the blind. It helped the convicts (someone to care for and love and have responsibility for and a sense of being needed and helping someone. It also made them less violent and more patient and compassionate) and it helped the dogs (they were saved and got homes) and it helped the blind (of course) but it also helps the community, because these people become productive members of society. Even if they had gotten life sentences, they still contributed positively. Programs like that should be encouraged instead of just killing people of, especially if it's just to meet an execution quota or "catch up". .