> >>As far as I'm concerned, a person who willfuly
> >>sp?) kills several other, to him/her unknown,
> >>human beings simply has to go: It's a matter of
> >>preservation of our species. Sacrifice one life
> >>to preserve potentially many others.
>
> I agree with you when you say that there isn't anything wrong with the death penalty if it's actually used to "preserve our species." But does that make it acceptable when other alternatives are available? Self-defense (aka "preservation") is the act of defending yourself, not killing aggressors. That might be necessary as a last resort, but it isn't obligatory, especially if their are nonlethal alternatives. This country is quite capable of keeping someone effectively imprisoned to prevent them from doing any further harm to society without even more bloodshed. That would be the alternative. Execution is unnecessary use of excessive force.
>
> ~suspenlute
> ~newbie who reads too many things on rinkworks and felt like posting! :)


Welcome!

Can I assume that we agree that the alternatives are either death or life imprisonment? If so, let me follow this train of thought: I'd say that the death penalty is the more humane of the two. As has been said in this thread, neither of these two is going to deter other potential murderes, and there is no real purpose in trying to 'punish' the criminal. I don't agree that a self-confessed murderer should be kept alive at all costs. I will agree that if there was a way that society could gain from keeping him/her alive, then that should be done. But, as far as I'm concerned, a murderer has forfeited the right to his/her own life. He or she has given that life up to society to do whatever suits society best. The irony, if you will, is that at the same time, this life acquires finite value: It devalues from being precious to ... 'budgetable', and it can therefore not be our ultimate priority to preserve it.

Oh, I probably went to far with the 'budgetable' thing, but you get my point, I think.

jul"feel(s) free to disagree"ian