Don't let the door hitcha in the ass on the way out! (Death penalty)

[rahmota]

I also recognize that while individual life is valuable, it is not as valuable as the health of a human society/nation/government as a whole.

Hmm right here is where i see a bit of a problem between you and I. I believe that the individual is more valuable and important than a society as a whole. This is because society is made up of individuals and stronger when the individual is respected and voluntarily acts in accordance with his or her fellow individuals in something.

My loyalties are in order from greatest to least importance: family, friends, hometown, county, region (ie appalachia which covers OH,KY, WV, etc..), state, country then humanity as a whole at the very bottom of the list.

So while I do support the death penalty it must be carefully applied like any other dangerous tool.

[MMATM]

There are two conflicting ways of looking at the issue, from what I've seen.

BlackIronCrown's way is more biological, while rahmota's way is more traditional.

Biologically, it makes more sense to kill as many of the murderers/rapists/etc as possible with the least possible collateral damage, to prevent further corruption or destruction within civilization. Humanity as a whole will benefit more from the removal of the ruined portions of its society despite the loss of some genuinely good sections, much like a living body. This sort of system requires sacrifice (or "martyrdom") for the benefit of the species as a whole, and is more in line with the tenets of evolution and the survival of human beings in general.

Traditionally, however, based on religion or a code of honor and/or ethics, the self is held sacred and one's immediate surroundings and companions are the most important, while those further away and having less impact on the self directly are therefore less significant. This is largely how Americans as a populace view the world, despite many who claim to think otherwise, and is likely the case in other countries (but I can't say for certain). This system is more ethical, but may end up inadvertently harming the good parts of society by offering the "benefit of the doubt" to those undeserving of it.

I used to be strongly for the death penalty, but having read some of the arguments in this thread I'm forced to rethink. I still support sanctioned death as a method of eliminating the incurably damaging aspect of our society, and don't (nor will I likely ever) see it as "lowering ourselves to 'their' level". As such, arguments that "executing murderers makes you a murderer too" have little sway with me.

The way I see it, if you (anyone) commit any crime that directly or indirectly affects another person, the most proper punishment would be to lose your right to any moral defense from the same crime committed by another person directly or indirectly affecting you. Unfortunately, this chain would continue to expand until all those inclined to commit crimes by nature or circumstance would have lost moral protection from their own evils, but this system also relies on the inherent goodness of humanity (which has always been and continues to be biologically unfeasible). So, while the justice system needs drastic revamping on all levels, there will never be a system that I consider "perfect" except one that boasts a flawless record of correct conviction and appropriate sentencing, which due to omnipresent human error is unattainable.

For the record, I am typing this at six in the morning after having not slept all night. I apologize for my verbosity, but I hope I've communicated my opinion as eloquently and understandably as possible, given the circumstances.