I can't imagine how you can argue for the death penalty except that it satisfies revenge and blood-lust. Now, are those two things that we want to enshrine in the law? Yeah, I know that it prevents killers from killing again, but how many people who have recieved life sentences (no parole) escape?

We know that as it's set up, the death penalty serves no other purpose. It's expensive, it doesn't deter criminal behavior, it's irreversable, and in many cases it's inhumane. Yeah, inhumane. Those of you who haven't done much research on the subject should check up on some of the things that have happened in death chambers since the Furman decision was reversed. There has been two or three electrocutions that haven't gone too well, there were two trips to the gas chamber that turned messy, and there have been countless lethal injections that actually are nowhere near as anticeptic as we believe. For what? Punishment?

Look, so many people who are against the death penalty feel sorry for the criminal. Not me. I think that criminals should suffer, but I think that it should be reasonable. I think that putting someone in a cell by themselves for several years and making them realize everyday that they will be shaved, diapered, and strapped to a chair or gurney to die (maybe painfully) is too much.

I think with a 30 year minimum sentence with possibility of no parole is a punishment that could allow for someone to turn around. We assume that one good person has lost their life. I think it might be possible that we may be able to fix a bad life. Wouldn't work all the time, but it may work some of the time. If not, we can still do plenty to punish over the course of decades.

Finally, I think that if we are going to keep capital punishment, executions need to be public, and the public should be strongly encouraged to watch since it is they that are responsible for the sentence that is being imposed.

__________________
Any man who can render himself unconscious with a pretzel isn't smart enough to lead the free world.