"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does it serve any
purpose to live in the first place?

Hardly. Jon made the statement, but I know precisely what he's saying.
There is no point in executing someone, because there are other means of
effectively removing the threat from society. It's a pragmatic argument,
not one of philosphy. You need to spend more time in the real world, Doug,
and less reading the writings of the Dalai Lama.

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

But at what cost? Oxygen is free, as we breathe it, and it costs more to
keep a prisoner on death row for 15-20 years than it does to incarcerate him
for life.


... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that it's the subject
of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile, health care for prisoners is
not a trivial expense for the state, either.

Cost analyses have fallen solidly in favor of life imprisonment in virtually
every study made on the issue. As for meaningless appeals, might some
reform of our legal system be in order? Anyone who voted for John Edwards
apparently must think not.




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.

Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small group in certain
circumstances" always opposes the best interest of certain other groups.
Some people are opposed to anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to
drunk driving, beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.

Thus the concept of majority rule. Solves myriad issues of such natures.

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.


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

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

Simple. Is death necessary (the only way) to insure that a criminal does
not have a recidivist opportunity? No.

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person could escape,
a change of administration policy, or a paperwork mistake could release
them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.

There is no recidivism from a properly run penal system fed by a
correctly-applied legal system. The problems (bifold) can be repaired
without killing anyone.


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


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a matter of
scale.

Preposterous. To equate a situation calling for war with that of removing
criminals from society is a childish exercise in pseudomorality.

Max