Manner of execution

[Riverboat]

has little effect on others who may commit crimes.)

Let the record show that not a single person who was executed has ever committed another crime.

[ProZak]

Once guilt is well established, justice should be swift.

[Doom]

I can defend capital punishment in theory (why should a man already serving a life sentence not kill again? What more can you do to him?)

I cannot defend it in practice. It's too capricious, takes too long, and has little effect on others who may commit crimes.)

That last part is absolutely wrong. The death penalty has a strong deterrent effect, much more do than life imprisonment. In the 30s-50s when there was a law that would mandate a prison sentence for armed robbery but death for a murder committed during an armed robbery, it was common for the police to catch criminals in the act of armed robbery using a gun with no bullets. Why would they try to commit armed robbery with a gun with no bullets? The most likely explanation is that they were worried about getting the death penalty if the gun fired accidentally so to make sure that was impossible they removed the bullets. After all, if you're going to threaten someone with a gun, an unloaded gun is just as effective as a loaded one.

[Tired]

For the sake of discussion, what is 'too long' or 'too inhumane'? There are absolutely sure ways to ensure someone is killed - many of which I'd always have a hard time intellectually agreeing to though they seem sure and short. They do suffer from the same thing mentioned in that likely a single person is responsible. I mean, anesthesia, then a 'drug'/chemical that stops the heart from beating is pretty quick, and likely not painful at all.

[Vern Humphrey]

I can defend capital punishment in theory (why should a man already serving a life sentence not kill again? What more can you do to him?)

I cannot defend it in practice. It's too capricious, takes too long, and has little effect on others who may commit crimes.)

That last part is absolutely wrong. The death penalty has a strong deterrent effect, much more do than life imprisonment. In the 30s-50s when there was a law that would mandate a prison sentence for armed robbery but death for a murder committed during an armed robbery, it was common for the police to catch criminals in the act of armed robbery using a gun with no bullets. Why would they try to commit armed robbery with a gun with no bullets? The most likely explanation is that they were worried about getting the death penalty if the gun fired accidentally so to make sure that was impossible they removed the bullets. After all, if you're going to threaten someone with a gun, an unloaded gun is just as effective as a loaded one.

So what happened? How come the homicide today is higher today?

[Doom]

I don't follow you, most states don't have a death penalty, and other than Texas, the ones that do rarely ever execute anyone. It is impossible to know how many people consider killing someone but decide not to do so out of fear of getting caught. Most murders that aren't done for the usual three motives (money, sex, and power) are drug-related, with one drug dealer killing another drug dealer for territory. Someone who is so psychotic he is going to kill a dozen people in a drive-by is unlikely to be deterred by anything.