Question For Death Penalty Opponents

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This question obviously applies only to those who oppose the death penalty under any conditions:

Suppose a proposal was brought up that would limit the criteria for, and thus reduce, the number of executions. Something like "only those who murder for money are eligible for the death sentence". That's just an example.

Suppose further that we somehow know that if the proposal is enacted, for every hundred executions now being carried out, the number, under this proposal, would shrink to x. But we also know that if the proposal is enacted, there will no longer be any chance to muster up enough public support to totally ban the death penalty in this country.

How small a number would x have to be for you to support the proposal?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with the death penalty is not the punishment itsself, it is that you cannot excute people in a human way. A modern state cannot lower itsself to the level of a brutal butcher slaughtering people. We are not barbarians anymore.

If you hang them, they suffer for minutes and [censored] their pants If you grill them on the electric chair they get burned to death
If you use lethal injection it takes up to 20 minutes before they die
If you cut their head off, there is blood all over the place

It is easy to talk about death penalty if you have not seen the pictures. Once you have seen them, it makes you throw up.

Show me a fast and clean method without suffering and I don't see any problem with the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if true, it would not bother me and I am sure it would not bother most of the families of the victims.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is the assumption - otherwise your reason for opposing it is that it is not fullproof (an acceptable reason).

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is an acceptable reason, does one need other reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that saying it makes the state the same as the killer is NOT an acceptable reason. There are other valid reasons even though personally the fact that it is not 100% does not make me want to abolish the death penalty.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is the assumption - otherwise your reason for opposing it is that it is not fullproof (an acceptable reason).

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is an acceptable reason, does one need other reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that saying it makes the state the same as the killer is NOT an acceptable reason. There are other valid reasons even though personally the fact that it is not 100% does not make me want to abolish the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is how I understood you. I was saying if not being 100% foolproof isn't reason enough, then I can't image any other reason that will convince anyone who agrees with the death penalty to change their position. With the possible exception if said person was the one falsely accused and about to be put to death.