I'm actually very conflicted over the death penalty, if you actually want to know. It's a really tough choice. I only support it in extreme cases where there is absolutely incontravertable evidence.

For example, the dude who beheaded an innocent teen on a bus in front of a bussfull of people.

I support an innocent child's right to live. If you can give an innocent child moral equivilancy with a convicted murderer, I think it is you who should examine your views. What you said is like saying 'You're for freedom, but you want to jail criminals', it just doesn't hold water. There is a huge difference between an innocent baby and a convicted murderer, and like I said, I don't by any means think the death penalty should apply in all, or even most cases, only in extreme ones.

The death penalty is actually an issue I don't feel that strongly about either way. We definitely use it too much in my state though (Texas), and even on retarded people! Go George W. Bush!

I don't see what the death penalty actually offers society that life imprisonment doesn't, other than a feeling of "fuck yeah we got 'em" for a few minutes. The difference in cost to taxpayers' wallets isn't worth that feeling for me.

From most of what I have read the anti-death penalty side has better arguments. I don't really have a problem with it if the people did something truly horrific though, like for serial killers or people who torture, rape, and kill children. So I guess I don't mind it as long as it is reserved for the most extreme of circumstances, for people who are truly divorced from the rest of mankind.

But I do love the novel American Psycho! And Christian Bale makes such a good Patrick Bateman.

I respect that view, but I don't like the fact that you grossly mis-characterized mine based on over the top stereotypes of 'crazy right wingers'. Sorry to bust your bubble, but most of us don't actually believe everything you think we believe.

The temptation is always there to use the death penalty as a 'gotcha back'. I personally believe it is benificial when a person is so depraved that they will most likely be a huge danger even in the prison system (to fellow inmates as well as officers). An example would be a serial killer who just enjoys murder- those people do exist. In that case, taking a life to protect others (even if they are other criminals, but especially to protect officers) is beneficial to society.

I personally believe the death penalty system is severely broken, and is in need of major overhaul. Many states are over the top with the death penalty, and inmates sit on death row for decades, costing taxpayers huge amounts of money (like you stated). If there's going to be a death penalty, it should be only in cases of absolutely incontravertable evidence (this would have to be very well defined), and the wait on death row should be no more than a few years.

EDIT: OMG!! I actually agreed with akuma587 on something!

EDIT 2: I don't think it's in Rubang's bag of tricks to recognize that somebody on the right can have a logical perspective. Am I wrong?

I respect all logic if it is consistent.  I think the Christian churches have a consistent morality on the subject, since they're anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.  I don't argue with the logic that connects the dots there.  I just disagree with one or more of the dots and explain why.

I think being pro-choice and pro-death is consistent, because really, fuck 'em all and let G-d sort 'em out.

I think being pro-choice and anti-death is consistent, because you can accidentally kill innocent people with the death penalty, but you can't accidentally kill non-fetuses with abortions, and because the death penalty takes decades longer than an abortion, and it costs way more of taxpayers' money.

I think being pro-life and pro-death is inconsistent, because I don't think committing a crime makes a criminal less valuable than an innocent fetus, and therefore deserving of less legal protection

Sorry if I painted you as a crazy right winger.  I don't know where or how I did that, but I didn't mean to.

I just think that in all extreme cases solitary confinement for life is better for society and taxes, and in case we realize we made a mistake, we can take it back.  (Sadly, even then, it's like a kick in the pants and $500 after 30 years of undeserved solitary due to some accident, but that's a whole different broken part of the system.)

I'm going to reply to the parts I bolded on your post.

1- Correction: The Germans ban/censor games, that's an exception rather than the rule. I didn't say all Europeans would dislike Palin because of the book banning episode, I said "many".

2- Regarding freedom of press:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking

All the countries in the top 14 are European, USA is #48.

Where's your evidence to say there's more press freedom in USA than Europe?

3- You do know about Palin's attempt to get books pulled from a library, don't you?

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

4- Regarding abortion:

I believe a lump of cells with no formed brain is not capable of suffering, consciousness or self-awareness, therefore I believe it's fine to abort at an early stage. From a quick google search, this argument seems to work at least for the first two months of pregnancy. For later abortions, I think we should take into account the impact on the mother as well as the baby. Do you have any idea how traumatic it must be to give birth to a baby after you were raped by your own father?

For the Constitutions sake, let's hope that it does.

For my sake, please stop the arguing

Please stay on topic or let the topic die folks. There is no problem with a death penalty debate but its pretty far off-topic in a thread about a poll.