Yea I really wish money went to more sustainable mediums like it does in the Scandinavian countries. They may get taxed through the roof but they know where to put the money.

First of all, if you are trying to draw parallels between the two, the situations don't really overlap or have many similarities. Their really is no reason to bring up war in a discussion about the death penalty.

Second of all, while there have certainly been instances where the United States were overly quick to jump into war, war is seen as a necessary evil. If a situation exists in which America and American citizens are in danger due to the actions of another country, war is the last resort in assuring the safety of the American people. So, am I okay with war? Well I certainly am not "pro-war", however, there are some situations in which war becomes necessary...

While the world does run on money, the prison system is a HUGE drain on taxpayer money and it costs a lot of money to keep people imprisoned (and arguably more to implement the death penalty). While the first step in reducing these costs is alteration of penalties, the suggestions that Reim made would require an initial investment but could potentially result in a long term savings.

Off topic but it makes me quite mad how some countries refuse to address the obvious problems.
"Oh we have 10,000 (made-up number) homicides per year. Must be those damn video games!"
SMH.
Guy gets a gun on his birthday and goes and shoots shit up in Charleston.
In response, there was that gem from an NRA board member, saying it was the Pastor's fault because he was opposed to letting people carry guns in church.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?????????? These are the people that have a say in our world? Fuck my fucking life.
FUCK it pisses me off how utterly RETARDED a lot of politicians seem to be.

"Wind is a finite resource."
"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that."
"Outside of the killings, DC has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
"But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what it is, away from the fog of controversy!"
"Life is indeed precious. And I believe the death penalty affirms that fact."
"My belief is that we will indeed, be greeted as liberators." (Dick Cheney before Iraq invasion).

I'm sorry, I'll stop now. But I cannot believe that this is the world I will be growing up in. Refusing to accept climate change, crime, etc etc. If I could wish for one thing, it is that politicians make their funders publicly known, so we can see who talks for them

I see several parallels. Many people find the death penalty hypocritical i.e. killing someone for killing someone else.  Essentially this is how wars start and function.  Could the death penalty not also be seen as a necessary evil.  You don't have to wage war, you can choose to just let yourself be killed / conquered. You don't have to put someone to death, you can just let them live in prison.

I'm just curious what others think. I'm not saying war is a good thing, I'm not saying the death penalty is a good thing. If there was anything in this thread I agreed with the most it would be :

No!

Worst part is that you can't take it back when later on it's clear that the person is innocent

It outlived it's use when it started to get "humane" ways to kill the deathrow inmates. They where originally meant to both scare and embarass potential criminals with an extremly painful, public death, but the way it plays out nowadays this just doesn't work anymore - and can't, as even proponents of death penalty are againt those torturing preactices.

Up until the 18th century a death punishment was also meant to be a very embarassing public torture: Short drop hangings, where the victims would not only slowly suffocate, but also loose the control over their muscles and ending up with bot an errection and literally shitting their pants, braeking wheels, where the victims got slowly beaten to death, brazen bulls where the victims got cooked to death, their screams being heard through the mouth of the bronze bull in an amplified and distorted way, boiling, which is essentially the same, exept the victim gets fried as well, the slow fights to death and agony in the coliseums in the roman empire... you get the idea.

It was a scaretactic, but it doesnt work that way anymore. A normal prison sentence is much more humiliating nowadays than a death sentence.

Also, if we kill a killer, aren't we technically killers too, and deserve death sentence in consequence? What makes murdering a killer better than than the murder(s) he comitted?

I'm 100% for it but only if the accused has strong evidence against him. If a person takes someone else's life, then I don't believe they deserve a second chance.

But there is a huge difference which (imo) invalidates any comparison. Death penalty is a penalty that replaces Life Without Parole. In both cases the person is removed from society and prevented from further commiting these crimes. War on the otherhand has little in the way of alternatives. Diplomatic action and economic sanctions are the first steps, but they do not really protect anyone and they certainly do not prevent anyone from taking action that will harm others. Because there is no equivalent to Life Without Parole for countries, you can't really compare war to the death penalty.

This is seen quite clearly when you compare "letting yourself be killed/conquered" to "life in prison", when the actual comparison would be to letting the criminal go free and turning a blind eye when they kill people or commit other crimes.

The only possible connection I see between the death penalty and war is the group of citizens that vehemently support both causes. No offense but it kinda sounds like the title of a Fox News article meant to shame Americans by implying they aren't patriotic, or that they are unconstitutional

This

Besides, why spend the rest of their lives feeding them, taking care of them and trying to stop them from coming back to the streets? I think that's just a waste of resources.  Resources that could be put to good use into something more worthy.

Yeah, I'll stick with the death sentence..  It's cleaner, faster, cheaper and we dont need to worry about them ever again.

First of all, it's not "revenge." THE DEATH PENALTY IS HANDED OUT BY A NEUTRAL JURY.

Second of all, even if it was revenge, so what? Revenge is a dish best served cold, and Boston gets VERY, VERY cold!

Third of all, the death penalty gives VALUE to human life. Basically if you don't give the murderer (especially a mass murderer) the death penalty you are saying that person's life is MORE worthy of life than the victims. Basically you are saying the victims lives were worthless.

Fourth of all, people CHOOSE to commit murder. It's a CHOICE, so they know the consequences. If I put my hand on a hot stove, I will get burnt. Simple as that.

Fifth of all, there are children STARVING. Veterans HOMELESS. Our tax money should go to them before a guy who thought it was funny to kill a dozen people including a baby and 6 year old girl.

There are no legitimate arguments against the death penalty.

A) a bear is charging at you agressively and you are left with no choice but kill or be killed.  

B) a bear is locked in a cage.  you can either kill the bear or not, your life is not in danger in either result. 

please tell me you can see the difference in those situations.  the is a massive moral difference in my opinion.