fatslob-:O said: Death penalty isn't meant to be a deterrent ... It's meant to rid of scums like Eagle said ... Mass murderers, terrorists, and mass manslaughter only deserve death in my eyes and they don't deserve a painless one either ...

Ironic because you acknowledge that there is no free will and thus even the mass murderers and terrorists didn't choose to commit the qctions they did. If it's not as a deterrent, then what is it for? Punishing them for making a decision that you already agree that humans are incapable of making? It makes no sense when you acknowledge that free will doesn't exist.

It's not ironic ...

They may have not chosen to commit these crimes but that doesn't mean society doesn't want to rid of nonconformant behaviour ... 

Just because they failed to adopt a conformant behaviour mean that we should spare them ... 

Just because humans are incapable of decision doesn't mean that their incapable of learning like rol giving that 2 + 2 example in the other thread ...

Death is too good of a punishment for criminals that murder. I think they need to pay for their crimes by living, so I say sentence them to a lifetime of hard labor. By the end of the day they should be begging for the death penalty. My tax dollars is already feeding them, and giving them a roof over their head..

Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty