> 1) It doesn't undo the crime.

Neither does a life sentence, though. That's like arguing that an apple is better than an orange by saying that an orange is not a vegetable.


> It merely means that that individual cannot do
> anything else, right or wrong.

This is a good thing.


> There is a great assumption in this thread that
> murderers / rapists / whatever can only be
> prevented from committing more crimes by
> killing them. Statistics demonstrate that most
> serious crimes are one-offs, and unlikely to be
> repeated.

Where are these statistics you're always talking about?

And even if "most serious crimes are one-offs," many aren't. Many murderers will continue to murder.


> 2) If someone is wrongly convicted, they cannot
> be un-executed.

This point has been touched upon in great detail by other posters in the thread, so I won't go into great detail on it. Basically, the point is that wrongful convictions are rare, and there are ways to have them overturned, such as the appeals mentioned so much by anti-capital punishment people.


> Who here believes that Texas's justice system
> is 100% reliable?

Who here believes that any justice system of any city, county, state, country, or even continent or world is 100% reliable? I certainly don't, but I continue to put my faith in the American justice system, because it's reliable enough. Nothing in the entire world is 100% reliable. Very few things are 100% anything.


> 3) Prisons have a responsibility to
> rehabilitate criminals.

Isn't punishment the purpose of punishment? We're not doing it to "rehabilitate" anyone. If we were we would not call it the JUSTICE system. Prisons are supposed to be a punishment. If some criminals get "rehabilitated," that's swell, but it's only a side benefit.


> 4) The death penalty does not discourage people
> from commiting capital crimes, any more than
> any other penalty. McVeigh didn't worry about
> it. NOr will the next one.

It's not supposed to be a deterrent, either. The death penalty is there to punish murderers. If it discourages other murderers, hey, that's great, but if it doesn't, oh well, that's not the point anyway.


> 5) Somewhere down the line, someone has the
> power to kill people.

Yeah, but it's necessary.


> I can imagine mass-murderers across the US
> thinking "I wish I was Governer of Texas - then
> I could kill lots of people legally".

You can? I can't. It's silly


> From a trans-Atlantic viewpoint, it seems that
> the US has elected someone who would, under
> other circumstances, be considered a mass
> murderer.

Other circumstances? You mean like if he entered a restaurant with an automatic and started shooting random people? He is not considered a mass murderer because, firstly, HE IS NOT A MASS MURDERER. Second, he's not the one who flips the switch or injects the poison. Third (and I'm not entirely sure about this, so I could be wrong), I don't think he (as governor) decides if people die. If he wants someone on death row to be pardoned, he can do that, but he can't just say, "Oh, let's kill this guy. I don't like him."


-eric sleator
Tue 12 Jun A.D. 2001