In article ,
DSK wrote:
just like nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of
rights vs gov't authority.

Depends on the person... oh wait, that's a detail. :-)

Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has
no moral right to capital punishment; then by logic, the
state would also have no right to wage war.

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone. There are worse things that are less expensive.

If an individual has the right to defend his own life, his
family, & his property, then by all logic that right extends
to use of deadly force at the extreme. The state is nothing
but a large group of citizens, therefor the citizens have
the right to endow that state with authority to use deadly
force (when in extremis) to protect them. In other words, I
have no problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty
beyond doubt of heinous crimes *should* be executed.

The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice. The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity. There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.

However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty
is currently applied in this country. But hey, it's always
detail detail detail!

Perhaps that's why the Illinois governor suspended all such penalties
in his state?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com