That said, I don't really care whether the bible agrees with the death penalty or not. The United States has the death penalty because we Americans are given a lot more freedom than people in other countries (example - we have the right to carry guns) and there must be consequences for abusing those freedoms.

This is true! While I may be FOR concealed carry people got to realize that if you mess up and shoot someone for a bogus reason (IE: they were bugging me don't cut it.) your going to reap the whirlwind.

But my contention is that capital cases are ONLY justifiable with a MUCH HIGHER burden of proof than in the Peterson case.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is as high a burden as is pragmatic. The next step above that is proving guilt every possible doubt, real or imagined. Besides, it's unfair to those NOT charged with capital murder, for they are not given equal protection under the law.

I'm lukewarm on the death penalty. I can see it's validity in many circumstances. If it to be used, it should ideally be used on the worst of the worst. I wonder what value it has in plea bargaining. and the arrests of other suspects responsible for a murder who were not initially captured (one suspect, threatened with prospect of death, rats out his cohorts in return for leniency).

One instance where I definitely support the use of the death penalty is for violent felons who escape prison and commit additional felonies. In fact, maybe prison break by a violent felon itself should be considered a capital offense, regardless of the commission of additional crimes.

Personally, I prefer hard labor camps in inhospitable locales for most criminals, icluding those who've been convicted of capital murder, butwouldn't fall into what I'd consider the worst of the worst. I do find hypocrisy in the arguments of some anti-death penalty advocates who say in one breath that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, then in the next breath support life imprisonment because it is more torturous on the mind to sit in a cell for decades thinking about what he has done.

Personally, I prefer hard labor camps in inhospitable locales for most criminals, icluding those who've been convicted of capital murder, butwouldn't fall into what I'd consider the worst of the worst. I do find hypocrisy in the arguments of some anti-death penalty advocates who say in one breath that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, then in the next breath support life imprisonment because it is more torturous on the mind to sit in a cell for decades thinking about what he has done.

Are you joking? You'd have the libs up in arms yelling cruel and inhuman punishment.

although i have no evidence to offer in support of what i'm about to suggest, i'm pretty sure i can dig something up if anyone requires it. absent that, what follows is solely opinion.

one more thing (this one im almost positive is correct): the primary objective of civil litigation is to make the damaged party whole.

as recently as 80 years ago in this country, a substantial percentage of the population depended upon farming to survive. sustinence farming requires a lot of labor but doesn't usually produce enough revenue for hiring help. while modern technology led to the development of agribusiness empires, at least half--if not more--of the people on planet are still toiling away in their fields much like our pre-historic ancestors did.

survival for a farming family--or village or tribe--requires land, water, seeds, livestock and enough people to cultivate, plant, care for and harvest or slaughter.

in today's america, children are--more often than not--born healthy and live well into adulthood. that's a very recent development and true only in first world nations. elsewhere it's still far more common--as it once was globally--that nearly half of all children born wont live to become adults.

where i'm going with this is: while our culture considers murder to be the ultimate crime because of its permanence and the fact that it deprives another of a full life...or it's seen as wrongfully assuming a power attached solely to a divine creator...there's a much more basic, pragmatic consideration. wilfully killing a productive member of the group (or more) severely jeopardizes every other member.

causing the death of anothers' lifestock or crops has the same effect--which is why the traditional remedy is replacement. obviously a murderer cannot restore his victim, but he or she might possibly be become a surrogate.

what relevance does this have to our non-agricultural society where it's highly unlikely a victim's family would want to have any contact with their loved one's killer?

rather than suggest any concrete options, it seems to me--especially in the case of articulate serial killers such as ted bundy--moral considerations based on religious teachings (if for no other reason than the impossibility of being able to prove or disprove divine authenticity) should be given less weight than objections based in legal logic and pragmatism.

who knows what might we have learned (and then employed to minimize the danger of) about serial killers? i can't believe were incapable of developing programs by which murderers contribute to making the families of their victims as well as the rest of society at least partially whole again.

Unfortunately, Law & Order is deterred by fear. For most poeple, it's the fear of paying a fine, getting their name in the police blotter, going to jail, losing their job.................. But for others, there is no fear. They don't care about what can happen. Thy just do it and "hope" they don't get caught. Murder, next to rape, is the worst crime of all. I believe, and have always believed in "an eye for an eye". I am sorry but a 16-17 year old kid that shoots and kills a cop, he knows exactly what he is doing and he should be treated as so!! I'm so tired of people not taking resposibility for their actions. Everything gets blamed on something else. Give me a break, if you are old enough to drive a car, you're old enough to be put to death if you are convicted of capital murder! Plus, I also support castration for rapists. But, I'm sure I can comment on that elsewhere. People, especialy teenagers need to learn that society is sick and tired of crime and the low-life lawyers that get them off because of this or that. Charles Manson is one of the worst criminals in modern day but there is one thing he said that I couldn't agree more with, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." If the time means the death penalty then that's what it is!!

While I am a proponent of capital punishment, I will still go out on a limb and agree with you here.

I agree too. I can't see the sense, sometimes...in killing a human being for the killing of another human being. I think that death is a relief to some of these dudes, a welcome escape after years of solitude. If we really wanted to punish them, we would keep them incarcerated until nature ran it's course.....

I would agree more with permanent incarceration if the prison system was constructed to better prevent ongoing anti-social behavior. I think it sucks to take someone who takes joy in victimization, and then drop them into a "Lord of the Flies" environment where they have a captive audience to victimize, many of which may be there for crimes far, far less egregious.

I don't want to see a "Clockwork Orage" style system any more than I want to see an end to the death penalty. If, though, our prison system was constructed in such a way to isolate criminals and remove their ability to continue their anti-social behavior, I'd be much happier to send monsters away for life. I don't think there should be anything social at all about prison. Letting it be a zoo just allows the prisoners to be animals.

I would agree more with permanent incarceration if the prison system was constructed to better prevent ongoing anti-social behavior. I think it sucks to take someone who takes joy in victimization, and then drop them into a "Lord of the Flies" environment where they have a captive audience to victimize, many of which may be there for crimes far, far less egregi

in all the death penalty states of which i have any knowledge, prisoners waiting for execution are segregated from the rest of the population as well as housed separately. three prisons in the california system--pelican bay, corcoran & valley state (for women)--have high security units run along similar lines.

it would be feasible to isolate at least the most anti-social convicts this way if the states (and the country as a whole) developed a more effective way to deal with those convicted of drug offenses that didnt involve violence or major quantities.

unfortunately the 'lord of the flies' setting (perfect comparison btw) isnt created or perpetuated solely by the inmates or without acquiesence or encouragement by prison officials.

one more thing (this one im almost positive is correct): the primary objective of civil litigation is to make the damaged party whole.

That is what compensatory damages are.  Punitive are just that.  Punishment.  I beleive a victim should get the compensatory, but hte punitive shoul dgo to some fund that would re-imburse others, not to the stated victim.

That is what compensatory damages are. Punitive are just that. Punishment. I beleive a victim should get the compensatory, but hte punitive shoul dgo to some fund that would re-imburse others, not to the stated victim.

the only reason i brought civil litigation into a discussion about the death penalty was as a foundation for my suggestion that 'a life for a life' might not necessarily mean a killer's life should also be extinguished, but rather be given to make amends to the damaged family.