I found the Babylon 5 episode on death of personality to be instructive. Rather than "barbarically" killing people for crimes, they erase their personalities and give them new, meaningful lives away from their pasts.

That's the worst form of punishment imaginable. It really would be more humane to just kill them, and yet somehow a lot of the characters think it's enlightened and better. For those of you a bit squeamish about taking life, remember that and how it's easier to be bad for goodness sake than good.

I really don't like our modern prison system because it gives a punishment, not restitution to the victims or survivors. Our entire justice system is based on Pavlovian conditioning, not on justice. Of course when you regard justice as Pavlovian, you're going to be against capital punishment. It undermines the purpose of punishment to kill the person you're conditioning.

Personally, I have nothing against capital punishment. I just don't think the option should be taken lightly.

I'm glad most people understand Capital Punishment can be just. I view only the concept of Justice when it comes to Capital punishment. It doesn't have to do with what others around think before or after its done but its about what SHOULD be done because the principle of Justice demands it.

I'm against it because "murder" has a lot to do with legal definitions.
It's not "murder" if the legal system declares that it's "lawful".

The executioner? Not a murderer, because the law says that what he does is okay.
Soldiers? Not murderers, because the law declares that what they do is okay. (Unfortunately, it can happen that your side loses, and the winning side has a completely different understanding about your actions being "lawful" or not)

Btw, I just realized for the first time that "lawful" and "awful" are just one letter apart.

My stance on it - Death penalty for child molesters and (serial-)murderers, castration and at least a 10-15yr prison term for rapists.

Im mostly for it, but hearing yearly stories of people being exonerated from their sentences due to advances in science makes me think there has been a fair number of people murdered the state.

Iit depends on your point of view. According to Kelsen's pure theory of law you are right. However to natural law, there are some rights inherent to the human condition.

OT - I think the death penalty is useful for the most heinous crimes. It may not stop them, but a violation to the legal system has to be avenged, and the society demands a proper answer for atrocities.

That's sad.

I think that problem is the legal system processing who is to be executed and who is not to be executed. Capital Punishment is not "something" to blame for mistakes like that. Capital Punishment isn't really a "something" at all. lol Its a concept, an idea... a tool.

Captial Punishment is a tool. And it is a tool in the hands of the legal system.

While the legal system will never be perfect because of human error... the goal should be perfection.

Anyways, I don't know a lot about the legal system but I would blame lawyers to definetly have a piece of the blame for that. I can't help but think that they can be serious key players in practicing justice by exposing tue criminals instead of defending them when the have the chance.

Why does it have to? I'm anything but a legal expert, but I know that students in my country learn different theories about the meaning of punishment. There are two basic theories over here, one being called "absolute Straftheorie" (absolute punishment theory?) and "relative Straftheorie" (relative punishment theory?).

I think what you describe is called absolute punishment theory and has a lot to do with the biblical "an eye for eye" concept. It doesn't focus on wether the punishment actually has a positive effect, the idea is rather that "something was done that hurt the legal balance, and now something has to be done to restore that balance".

Relative punishment theory on the other hand focuses on the actual effects. It focuses on the future; revenge should not be a motive for the punishment; the punishment should only focus on prevention. This concept seems to be very close to what someone above told about a Babylon 5 episode.

In legal practice over here, it's a mix of both concepts, but I personally definitely prefer the relative theory.

ive seen what kids go through after being abused. it fucks their whole life up. these sick ass pedophiles get back on the streets and do worse every time. they should be executed. murder as well. also, they should have to go in  the most fucked up violent way possible, make sure they fear whats coming to them like their victims, especially the pedophiles, a Theon treatment would be a start.

I used to believe in the Death Penalty. But the problem with this believe is that you will always have to execute someone. If you practice if an "eye for an eye", then say you execute a murderer surely you the executioner must be killed for killing too and it would just go on and on like that. It is also very expensive to do humanely, surprisingly keeping them in a prison cell is cheaper.

Also, there is the problem of killing the wrong person or killing someone despite the crime not being justified for the justice. Which is why it was abolished in the UK in 1965, as we executed innocent people by mistake.

I mean how can we call ourselves civilised if we still kill people whether they actually deserve it or not? Also by killing them, that is the easy way out for them. By keeping them alive, they must live with the consequences of their actions. Most criminals are cowards who kill themselves anyway as they can't deal with the consequences.