... I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.


In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
He wasn't a threat any more.

Disagree strongly.
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no
unreformed murderers on death row.


... In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of
granting clemency, after all he can't write many positive
influence children's books from that great solitary cell in
the sky. But the man was, as far as can be proven, a
multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.




I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.


Better yet, hold alka-seltzer in one hand and cyanide in the
other and say 'guess which hand?'


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."


When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).


Or when a person has committed at least one heinous crime
such that his very humanity is in doubt, and it is too great
a risk to let him continue to share our planet.

It would be the same with some people in my house or yard,
same for the whole planet. A problem removed is a problem
solved.

DSK