If you don't believe in the death penalty, this should change your mind.

[The Ghost of RubangB]

Tyrannical said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

Tyrannical said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

Ah, so legal things are legal.  Good point.  I think we can look up where it's legal and where it's illegal, but I don't think anybody is arguing that.

Well, you seem to like to get moral and legal confused when it suits your arguments.

You seem to say things like this all the time without any examples, so I don't believe you.  If you have been confused by any of my comments feel free to point them out and I'll do my best to make sense of them.  You've also accused me of dishonest misdirection without providing any examples, and you were wrong then too.

Here is where you demonstrate your inability to tell legal and moral appart.

I still don't think a government should have the power to kill.  I think all murders should be against the law, no matter the reason and no matter the killer.  I want criminals and governments to follow the same law: no murders, no executions, no torture.

I just see an individual murdering somebody and a jury murdering somebody as equally bad and not helpful.

Here is your dishonest misdirection. It has nothing to do with the cost, or the possibility of executing the wrongly conviected as you later admit.

The death penalty costs way too much money. There are 2 ways to lower the costs: abolish the death penalty entirely, which will save tons of money (good) and never accidentally kill an innocent person again (very good), or allow for speedier executions with fewer appeals, which will save money (good), but leads to more accidental executions of the innocent (very bad).

I think in this case it is 100% guaranteed the man is guilty of one of the most horrible crimes, but I still don't want to allow the government to kill him

Are you arguing semantics because I used the word murder instead of the word kill?  I think it was pretty obvious that I was saying I think it should be illegal because I think it is immoral.  I think 12 assholes hanging a guy in the woods and 12 jurors sending a guy to death in a courtroom are equally immoral, but one is legal.  I think that is bad.

I don't see any misdirection in the 2nd part.  I am arguing from a financial perspective there.  Those are the 2 ways to lower the cost, and one involves killing more innocent people.  I think that is bad.  And yes, the cost involved is important.  As a taxpayer I would like to know why my money has to kill people in a way that has been proven to not benefit society.  It doesn't deter crime more than life sentences, and it costs more than life sentences.

Is something I'm saying a lie or confused?  Or can we just disagree?