Exactly, every citizen and permanant resident has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are being denied to those who are administered capitol punishment.

It is not society through the state that is taking these rights, it is the government. The government is responsible for administering justice. No where in the constitution does it say the government can violate peoples rights for any reason, not even if they break the social contract.

The surpreme court would be wise to declare unconstitutional the section of the criminal code that allows for this clear violation of of a persons right to life. Luckily, some states are wise and don't pass such ruthless legislation.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Well actually even life in prison takes away the right to liberty... and permanently. The trouble I have with the death penalty other than the fact that it gives the State authority over life is that, like gun control, it is a symbolic solution. Removing criminals from the street one at a time does nothing to address the reasons why people commit crimes. People don't commit crimes because they can. Most people commit crimes for some reason and many times those reasons are socially created. Occasionally there are some honest-to-god sickos and if it is possible to isolate them from others, I'd say go ahead and execute them because they can't be fixed. But continuing to allow people to believe that somehow most crimes occur because of certain individuals pre-conceived genetic data and that removing them one by one will do any good is counterproductive. The death penalty is not a deterrant because when people commit such a crime, they either don't care about their lives or they think the chances of getting caught are slim. The best way the latter is to get the frivolous laws off the books and end the war on drugs so that cops can focus on real crimes and criminals will get caught. For the former, we cannot solve all problems but we can at least think about economic development in crappy areas and better education are a good place to start.
Also the trouble with your overencompassing rule about society taking away rights of criminals can be extended to allow for execution of petty thieves, public drunkards, and jaywalkers. It needs a little refining.
And the main reason I believe in rehabilitation is because many of the causes for the hopelessness that leads to both crime and chronic poverty is related to the philosophy so many have that once a mistake is made, there is no hope for redemption. A symbol of some positive progress is more powerful than more symbols of negativity, especially for those who are ready to throw in the towel.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

More fuzzy-headed thinking on your part, wildbore! The rights to life, liberty, and property are not absolute. Your continuation in these rights is conditional upon your observance of other people's rights to life, liberty, and property. In short, as long as you remain in observance of the social contract, you continue to have the rights of life, liberty, and property. But, with rights come responsibilities. If you break the social contract by violating other people's rights of life, liberty, and property, the government can take away your life and/or your liberty and/or your property. In short, if you break the social contract, you should no longer expect the protection of the social contract and others no longer have to respect your rights and, if the offense was heinous enough, the government can kill you for it.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

You are full of BS. Breaking the social contract does not mean ones rights should be disregarded. Amendment VIII of the Bill of Rights says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Its safe to say Capitol Punishment is unusual punishment, given it serves no practical purpose and may result in the deaths of innocent people.

Inmates still have liberty, they can freely move around in their cell, make a few phone calls and can sometimes go to recreation areas. They can still pursue happiness as well, althought its doubtful they will find any. With a prison sentance, ones rights are protected.

For decades it has been clear that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. Actually, the states with the highest crime are the ones with the death penalty.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

More fuzzy thinking from wildbore! Do you even know what a contract is? A contract is a legal instrument saying that Person 1 agrees to perform Action A, in return for which Person 2 agrees to perform Action B. Example: A agrees to show up at a place of work and perform some agreed-upon kind of work for B and B agrees to pay some agreed-upon amount of money to A. So long as A and B are both holding up their respective ends of the bargain, the contract remains valid; however, if A stops coming in to work for B, B no longer has to keep paying A or, alternatively, if B stops paying A, A no longer has to work for B, because the contract has been breached and is therefore null and void. So it is with the social contract. Respect everybody else's rights to life, liberty, and property, and you are holding up your end of the social contract, so society, the state, and the government must respect your rights to life, liberty, and property. However, if you go around abducting, robbing, and murdering people, or otherwise violating other people's rights to life, liberty, and property, you have not upheld your part of the social contract, you are in breach of the social contract, and so society, government, and the state no longer need to respect your own rights to life, liberty, and property. IN SHORT, YOU CANNOT SERIOUSLY EXPECT TO BREACH A CONTRACT AND THEN EXPECT OTHERS TO RESPECT YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THAT CONTRACT EVEN AFTER IT IS NULL AND VOID BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

In short the social contract is a theory. There may be no social contract. Even if it exists, its contents are open to interpretation. At least the Bill of Rights is real and one can clearly see that Capitol Punishment is cruel and unusual punishment. It is so unusual that the only countries practice the death penalty are those that consistantly violate human rights. Oh yea, looks like the U.S. follows suit with that company.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

More intellectual sewage spills forth from the computer of wildbore. The social contract is in fact a contract you live by if you choose to live in society. And those who would break the social contract should no longer expect others to honor their rights under a broken contract. Pure and simple. Moreover: Capital punishment is NOT cruelAND unusual punishment. In order for a punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment, it must be BOTH cruel AND unusual. The Constitution does not prevent cruel punishments, so long as they are the usual ones. [What the heck do you think punishments are supposed to be? Kind?]

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

lol, just because people follow the rule of law does not mean they subscribed to this magical contract. Actually, no one cares about this contract. As a matter of fact, confinement serves many practical purposes, death penalty serves to do nothing. If the death penalty isn't cruel and unusual then what is it, peaceful and friendly? You know nothing.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

You are the one who knows nothing. The fact that you for god knows what reason continue to live in society means that you have, by default, consented to the social contract. If a person wishes to announce their lack of consent thereto, they can do so by going away in the middle of the woods or the desert somewhere ... and live by themselves ... without any other people around.

If you would actually read the Constitution, you would know that it says that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Convicted criminals have had their due process and it is up to the judge or the jury to determine whether the convict shall pay with his life, his liberty, or his property.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University, 1993

I think the question we have been argueing this whole time was whether the convicted criminals were wrongly convincted. Since its likely, its bad enough to imprison them, but its reprehensable that they would be killed. At least when they are in prison they are still alive when new evidence exonerates them.

It seems you lose this arguement.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill