Hmm...

In my opinion (and this does need to be stressed that this is MY opinion, and not a common one), it looks to me that in the vast majority of rape/murder/torture cases, the perpetrator have spent most of the lives as victims, theirselves. Whether it's abuse or bullying or mental health issues, most of these "cold" criminals have got reasons as to why they've gotten fucked up in the head.

For me, it would be much better if these individuals were put into secure facilities where they can undergo therapy and treatment. Try to heal their minds first, so that they can feel, for once, human, and let them have some compassion for their victims. Let them work in the prisons and have the proceeds go to either the victim/victim's estate, or charities that deal with helping victims.

In cases where they are deemed to fit to enter society by professionals, have received forgiveness from the victims/victim's estate, and have met certain arbitrary points (like 30 years, or whatever), give them partial freedom again: back outside, but with constant surveillance, mandatory "check ups", restrictions on how far they can travel, etc.

I don't think humans have any benefit for giving into our petty instincts for revenge.

I dont think that having someone punished can never be considered something positive. It can, in some cases, have positive side effects, but in itself, it should be avoided as much as possible.

Absolutely not. I believe that no one, not the state or an individual, has the right to decide a persons right to live or die. It's barbaric and medieval and focuses on some kind of "revenge" aspect of the legal system, when a legal system shouldn't enact revenge on criminals, but rather justice.

What would you consider justice for someone like Pol Pot?

Wouldn't that be hypocritical and corrupt of us to just go against our own moral beliefs and end a life due to someone else's actions? Sure they killed innocent people (which is the wrong thing to do) but we still know that we shouldn't kill other people. We are civilized (or clearing only some of us) enough to know that it is wrong to kill yet we break those moral grounds based on someone else's actions.

Your moral values are YOUR moral values. If your moral values are affected by someone else then you are letting their actions speak for your moral values, which, in this case, is to kill. Congratulations, you're no better than they are, you just think your supporting death for a just cause.

Works both ways. You can apply that to almost anything. Like say pests. You had to kill bugs or rats in your home. You did it, why? To stop the situation. A just cause, as you put it. You killed something. Are you going to argue it's not an important lifeform? Are you a horrible person now that you killed it? Your view is everything is one way or the other. There is no between. I see the argument not if the death penilty is wrong. I see it if it's justified to the case at hand. Not every case. I don't want the death penilty for some ass who robbed a store. Or if a kid was playing with a gun, and shot someone by mistake.

Against, unless its an extreme case of mass murders with no regrets.

For example the shooter in sweden. He probably should be executed. It's people who have psychological defects that are so strong that they are a danger to themselves and others. At that point, its best for everyone to put them out of their misery.

Though i can understand the case of murder without regret aswell. It definitly makes me think. We must protect life and taking someone's life should come at an equal price. The problem then is that we become as bad as they are.

Now here lies the problem. These arguements that are in defense of the death penalty are so fallacious. If its not 'strawman' its 'two wrongs make a right', if its not 'two wrongs make a right' its 'appeal to emotion' and the list goes on. Your basing your arguement on the assumption that I don't feel the same way about all living things.

My arguement was not broadened to the whole schematic of life because that would also include bacteria that could kill us. You say people have to kill bugs or rats in your home to stop the situation, well...what situation are you stopping when a murderer is already in high security custody?

I'm not talking about pests, I am talking about human beings, separate discussion. But just to give you a bit of bite I will say that people kill bugs, pests, arachnids and the sort because they (naturally) morally justify it. When you don't morally justify an action but then turn around and do it yourself, your instantly a hypocrite or just flat out corrupted. All this due to outside variables that if people were able to see past their emotions would realize that their moral values are still the same and that the death penalty is not required in order to keep society safe.

Not saying you don't give out good points and not saying I myself don't fall into fallacy mode but I just cannot support a cause that goes against my moral value, and I'm not going to let someone elses actions dictate or shake my moral grounds.

That is not how a justice system is supposed to work. It is never built upon the view of "an eye for an eye" but rather imprisonment or fines depending on the gravity of the crime and a focus on rehabilitation of individuals. Is your view that if someone shoots another person, but that person doesn´t die, the sentence is to shoot the criminal aswell? As a society we must be far more evolved than this.

Life long imprisonment to show him that we as a society are always more humane than the people we imprison. A lot of these people will also be more famous in death than in life and in many cases celebrated instead of loathed.