Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
I must point out, however, that we haven't just been talking about habitual killers. We've been talking about all murderers, and most murder victims know their killers and are frequently closely related. Such killers are not serial murderers but have reacted to a situation they could not handle any other way. Those people are unlikely to kill again, and probably regret their action.
I agree, those kinds of killers should not be eligible for the death penalty.

But what about the guy who walks into a convenience store, pulls a gun and demands the money, then shoots the cashier after she compliently hands over the cash, simply so she won't be able to ID him to the police? This is a cold blooded killer, one with absolutely no regard for anyone's life. He will kill again whenever he feels like it. And he won't regret it, either. At least, not until he gets caught. Do you really believe that kind of killer should be treated the same as the others?

I don't know about the UK, but if a dog kills a human in the US the dog is put down, regardless of circumstances. I don't see why a cold blooded killer shouldn't be treated in the same way.

Then you ask, what about the Human Rights of the victims? Pardon me for stating the absolutely-bleeding-obvious, but they're dead. Whatever right to life they had was taken away.
What if they're not dead, but in a vegetative state, or paralyzed? Do they still have their human right's then? For all intents and purposes they've lost everything except their lives. Should their attacker get a soft sentence for not killing them?

The victim's relatives have lost a loved one, a partner or parent or child; a bread-winner perhaps. They will naturally be grief-stricken, and they will be filled with hatred for the murderer. But their human rights are unaffected.
No, but their lives have been affected. What of the mother's right to see her child grown and married? What of the daughter's right to have her father walk her down the aisle? What of the toddler's right to be raised by her parents instead of the state? Don't those rights mean anything?

Justice isn't giving satisfaction to the angry and disgusted in order to mollify them, it is meting out a punishment that is appropriate in the view of sober-minded, dispassionate judges according to a law that has developed over hundreds of years and has been enacted by democratically elected representatives after serious argument and debate (on a free vote, by the way).
I agree. And sometimes, the only true justice is to remove a mad dog from society, permanently and finally.

Statistics here in the US show that there is no deterrent value to use of the death penalty. So trying to use the argument that it does would be futile. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. The death penalty has its uses, and its faults. I agree it should be a last resort, for very specific crimes, and only after a lot of deliberation and care. That's one reason why every death sentence in the US is automatically subject to appeal. And when push comes to shove, I have no problem with the state executing a John Allen Muhammad. And while I'm not a violent man, if necessary I would be willing to push the button, throw the switch or pull the trigger myself. Not to deter the others, but to protect the innocent.