I am in favor of the death penalty but the circumstances have to be appropriate. Sometimes biological automatons are just flawed without any hope of rehabilitation.

I'll give you two scenarios which I believe are important to this discussion which express my position well.

1: Serial Killer

Well we know that these people tend not to stop what they are doing. I am in favor of terminating these flawed humans to prevent the rest of society from their burden.

2. Husband comes home and finds his wife sleeping with the neighbor. He flips out and kills one or both of them.

This doesn't seem to be a future risk to society, it seems more of an emotionally fractured person caught in a moment of time. Since the risk to society as I see it is negligible, if not zero, I would be in favor of a short sentence (if any sentence at all, but that's another discussion).

I do but it can only be in murder cases. Only place I can accept it is when I know, for certain, it is not in vengeance.

No because no human should be able to decide between life and death of other humans imo. Besides that, a lifetime in prison is a harder punishment than a death penalty.

I feel like it should only be reserved for extreme cases, like someone who gets away with mass genocide.

Outside of that, I don't see the point, considering that being confined in prison for possibly the rest of your life sounds even worse than death.

To put it simply, the death penalty is barbaric, unworthy of any nation that calls itself civilized and a fundamental contradiction: You tell people that life is the most precious thing and you make your point how? By murdering people?

And that's not even talking about the fact it totally does not work as a deterrent as people continue committing crimes despite the death penalty being used. It's just a way to give in to one's primitive instincts of vengeance.

When you take a look at the countries that apply the death penalty you see a pattern: Violent countries with a violent history and an inability to master their violence and get past it.

I wouldn't call Japan pacifist, nor any country for that matter. They're held together by a system of violence, namely the police force and the military.

You have a point, no country is completely violence free and no country does not have a violent past.

But some countries are ahead in terms of violence or barbaric behavior. I'm only saying ahead, and before someone reacts to my statement I never said, completely ahead and violence free, let's agree on that.

As for Japan, you must take into account their state of mind and their philosophy. They do not regard life the same we do in the west. While no one would say life is worthless over there, they consider some things more valuable than life, like honor. A lot of Japanese people kill themselves for reasons considered ludicrous here: Students that are not doing good in their studies and see themselves as shaming their families, workers that can't find a job etc. Suicide can often be more important than life to the people of Japan.

Add to that a very violent past that was extremely violent not so long ago.

I think Japan is a special example of extreme violence, extreme peace and something in between which is maybe how you can explain that they are both peaceful and still have the death penalty.

I don't trust the government deciding where the line is of what warrants the death penalty, so no

The doctors aren't really deciding though. They are applying a blanket "life for all" statement to everyone they treat (unless legally prevented from doing so). To say that they are deciding would be to imply that the doctor is looking at a patients chart and saying "Well, he seems like a good person so I'll treat him. The guy in the next bunk seems like a jerk, so I'll not treat him." If that were the case, I would be very much against it and I would believe that it is immoral and unethical.

Because of that, I'd say your comparison is flawed.

True but the difference is that life is precious in the west from an "official" point of view. No government would declare that life is not precious or precious in some cases only etc.

So from there the death penalty is a contradiction that makes no sense. And to make things worse it never stopped crimes from existing so the only excuse those countries have is not even valid to beging with.

As for India, even more than Japan life is regarded as a transient thing far less important that life in the west. They believe that people live, die and reincarnate almost endlessly. Killing someone in india is barey more serious than firing someone from a job in the west so that person needs to change their plans and find a different path.

While this explains why the death penalty in India is not as big a deal as it is in the west, I want to make clear that It is nonetheless as barbaric as anywhere else it is implemented. It is just as wrong and misguided as anywhere else even if to Indians, death is just moving from one state to another and does not really change the nature of the person that dies.