[Larry Lucido]

If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.

An assertion with absolutely no support.

[grobdriver]

If our nation abolished the death penalty, the consequences of the system's imperfections would not be a matter of life-and-death. Brutal murderers could still be punished and kept off the streets. True justice would be served.

I wonder if Ben's opinion would change if his wife were to be caught alone at home some night, raped repeatedly, beaten and her throat cut open - then have the perp caught by diligent police work, the evidence sufficient to convict him.

[ClearCase_guy]

Last week, I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense. Now, let's look at the moral aspect. The most common argument favoring the death penalty is serving justice. Killing the man may keep him from murdering someone else in the future,

Hmmmmmm. So, the death penalty is not a deterrent, but it does keep the man from murdering someone else. This word "deterrent" -- what does it mean?

[trebb]

The guy talks of morality, but fails to use any true moral arguments. Plus, it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years.

[Jeff Head]

Last week, I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense

He showed nothing. A person who is executed is absolutely and permanently deterred, more so than any other means.

It is clear that this individual attends BS-U for a reason.

[Glock19C]

From what research I've done into this issue, it is the deterrent nature of the death penalty that is the best argument for it. I've read interviews with criminals that did not commit a particular crime (executing a witness for instance) because they knew that would bring the death penalty into play.

Personally I don't much care one way or the other.

[Beck_isright]

Last time I checked, those criminals which were executed have committed no further crimes. Sounds like the problem was solved to me.

[GilesB]

Show society that "Life imprisonment" means just that - then you have some moral foundation to talk to us about alternatives to the death penalty.

As long as "Life" means 15 to 20 years, society is not being protected from the predators through life sentences and society will demand something meaningful - like death.

[OpusatFR]

"The most common argument favoring the death penalty is serving justice.

Killing the man may keep him from murdering someone else in the future, but the death penalty is unnecessary to protect citizens from dangerous criminals. Executing the murderer is not necessary for justice to be served."

This person has a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of Justice. Justice is not the means to keep someone from murdering again. The death penalty should be the final resort for those to whom we say, "You are not fit to live in society even though imprisoned or isolated. You have violated every tenet of humanity. Justice is served by removing you from our midst."

The Ted Bundys and John Wayne Gaceys of this life were executed not as examples to other killers but to remove them from our society. The depraved indifference and murderous rage of these men was beyond the pale. To have allowed Bundy to continue his legal studies and writing, or Gacey to continue his painting and sales was an affront to the concept of Justice itself. Their lives were forefitted when they consciously made the decisions to murder.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

1. If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.
Wrong. Who is responsible for prisoners murdered while in prison?

2. He will never harm another.
Yeah, fights never happen in prison. No one ever cuts beaten or cut.

3. The sanctity of human life will be preserved.
Ever heard of prison rape? How does that sanctify human life?

Hoser.

[alisasny]

This guy is an idiot for the simple reason that he wastes all this time on 3000 or so of the worst America has to offer, those on death row, over anything else.

The American death penalty is the most humane DP in the world.

In addition it is not used enough.

[theDentist]

If a man serves a life-without-parole sentence in a maximum-security, solitary confinement prison, he will never murder another man again.

Tell that to the guards, and to other prisoners. Solitary confinement might work, but after a certain amount of time, Prison officials will put the killer in the general population. You only get Solitary/Protection if you're considered to be likely to die in GP (rapists, child molesters, traitors, etc). How many killers are in for multiple murders? How many of their 2nd (or 3rd +) murders are committed behind the walls? Further, there are too many judges and parole boards out there who will release killers because they feel they've learned their lesson. And why not? The killers don't live in their neighborhoods. Besides, they don't want people to they they have no "feelings".

Nowhere in our Constitution or our laws does it state that the job of the government is to exact revenge for private citizens.

What is prison? What are fines? These are forms of "revenge". But this isn't revenge. It's punishment. When you commit the ultimate crime, you face the ultimate penalty. And in this case, the confinement is not the penalty. That's the way station to his real punishment.

Our death sentencing system is racist.

Most of those on death row now are white.

If you wish to be shocked even more, you can read "Devil's Knot" by Mara Leveritt

So all this is just an advertisement to sell a book which already has an agenda. A few anecdotes and examples of questionable cases (that's why we have appeal courts) does not mean all cases are questionable, and therefore none should be punished for their crimes.

You can't un-kill a person.

Tell that to the murderers. Besides, once we do put a murderer to death, he never kills again.

[AbsoluteJustice]

IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A DETERRANT BEN!!!! IT IS A PUNISHMENT!!! GET THAT THRU YOUR CONCEPTUAL LIBERAL HEAD!!!

[thatsnotnice]

Nowhere in our Constitution or our laws does it state that the job of the government is to exact revenge for private citizens.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The term “capital crime” denotes, to me, a crime or offense punishable by death.

[thepitts]

Anyone who trusts the government,state or federal, enough to allow them to put citzens to death should re-read their history books.

[TheDon]

"I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense."

I guessed I missed that speech.

[Sloth]

...80 percent of all capital cases involve white victims, although only 50 percent of all murder victims are white. The U.S. General Accounting Office summed it up in 1990 when it reported, "In 82 percent of the studies [reviewed]... those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

This is not an argument against the death penalty -- it simply shows that we need to start executing greater numbers of people who kill non-whites.

[Consort]

If the death penalty is immoral....then it is an immoral imperative. Funerals, for the victims and for the murderers, are for the living; not for the dead.

[sausageseller]

Write to Mouse at bbmcshane@bsu.edu

SS. Send your comments. IE. Freep him!

[Extremist]

Fact: For interracial murders since 1976 that resulted in a death sentence, 178 of the cases involved a white victim and a black defendant. Twelve cases involved a black victim and a white defendant.

That is a stupid statement. Those who commit the crime are the ones who must be punished. Do they want an affirmative action death penalty that would force authorities to grab a random white guy off the streets to executute after each execution of a black man? I can't think of one single case of a white person from my community killing a black person. On the otherhand, there have been many cases of blacks killing whites. The motive is always the same: drug money. A couple of months ago a young cab driver was shot in the back of the head and robbed of ten dollars. The three monsters then took his cab for a joy-ride. They now face possible execution.

Would this pin-head please explain to the now orphaned child of the cab driver that to rid the world of the men who killed his daddy would be wrong?