> I don't agree. Of course, the actual Holocaust incident (!) would have been prevented, but it is my firm conviction that someone else would have come along instead, maybe at a later time, given it another name, but essentially do the same thing. Why do I think this? Hitler was not the problem. Hitler was the extreme manifestation of the problem. Therefore, killing Hitler would not have solved the problem, it would merely be dammage control. It's the same thing when murderers are electrocuted or whatever. The problem is not solved. The problem is that someone innocent was murdered. This is not rectified by executing the murderer, but you can hope to limit the number of people who might do it later on. Similarly, killing all terrorists will not end terrorism. If you do not solve the problems that "created" terrorism, terrorists will come back. You know what problems I'm thinking of, and you know why I put "created" between quotes. If you don't, ask someone, but I can't be bothered right now.
>
> In conclusion, killing doesn't solve problems. At most it controls them, which is not the same. This is precisely *why* we all say that it should only be the last resort.
>
> jul"Oh no! Look at the mess I've got myself into again!"ian

Actually, they've done studies on the death penalty, and concluded that it really doesn't act as a deterrent at all. In my mind, that doesn't weaken the argument for capital punishment though - I really think that if you've done something bad enough, like killed 5 people, you deserve to die for it, and the only legal means of this is through the execution process. I see nothing wrong with vengeance, so long as it is mixed with a healthy dose of justice. If executions were based only on vengeance (and if they were, you can bet they would be a lot messier), I don't think capital punishment would be right. That said, in the way capital punishment is carried out now, the US tries to protect the rights of the condemned all the way to the execution chamber - vengeance isn't the state's burden, but the victim's family's (whether they choose to forgive the killer or not is another story) - the state is only providing justice. The only reason that I have lately been thinking twice about capital punishment is that a large number of innocent men seem to be on death row. I'm not of the mind that it's better to let 1 innocent man go free than to kill him along with 10 guilty ones, but it's troubling nonetheless. I think capital punishment should be reserved only for the cases where there is scientific proof of the killer's involvement - DNA samples, blood, what have you. Eyewitness testimony alone shouldn't be enough to put a man to death, it's too unreliable.

jon