3/11    I am curious, what would the death penalty opponents say about
        people like Brian Nichols? Or those who committed 911? Where
        do you draw the line?
        \_ You draw the line at "state-enforced execution."  -tom
           \_ So you suggest we let people like Brian Nichols happily
              live in prison, watching TV, and pumping iron?
              \_ Yeah, I'm sure prison is just like a country club.  -tom
                 \_ Of course not.  In a country club, you have to pay for the
                    food and the gym, and there's no free medical.
           \_ What about state-enforced prison? Are you against
              anything state-enforced?
              \_ No.  Don't be a moron.  -tom
                 \_ He probably can't help it.
        \_ I'm not necessarily against the death penalty, but I believe the
           system can be improved.  My opinion is that, while in the U.S. you
           can convict someone with "beyond reasonable doubt", you should only
           be able to put someone to death using "beyond any doubt" that the
           defendent actually committed the crime.
           E.g., the jury convicted Scott Peterson using "beyond reasonable
           doubt", but I don't believe a jury could say it was "beyond any
           doubt" he did it or had someone do it, and so therefore couldn't
           sentence him to death.
           Naturally things like state-of-mind (premeditation / heat of the
           moment, clinical insanity, etc.) may be hard to include in this
           equation -- unless for example you have someone telling several
           people that they have nothing against Grandpa, but they really want
           that inheritance and he's old anyway -- but that's the main tricky
           part of the implementation.
           Ideally, there shouldn't be a death penalty, but some system where
           those who would normally be put to death would be punished with hard
           labor and minimal comforts for the rest of their lives.  But this
           ideal may be hard in coming and in regulating abuse, so I'm not
           going to preach on that, but push a "beyond any doubt" restriction
           on capital punishment instead.
           \_ So let's say they can't prove for _sure_ someone did XYZ.  It's
              OK to take away their life with a fate many would consider worse
              than death: life in prison, but not OK to kill them, usually on
              \_ What I don't understand are the arguments that support the
                 death penalty for reasons beyond what it is: (a) to punish,
                 (b) to set an example, (c) to remove a danger from society.
                 It is not a mercy killing, nor can you apply economic
                 arguments.  I personally oppose it, although asking me a
                 "what if" question like this is basically the same as the
                 torture dilemna--in short, I don't know.  I just wish people
                 arguing pro/contra the death penalty would be intellectually
                 honest and not use nonsense reasoning.  -John
              the argument that it's irrevocable.  I would argue that life (or
              even a long period) in prison is just as irrevocable.
              \_ Let's take Scott Peterson.  We can't prove for _sure_ he did
                 it or had someone do it.  The jury puts him in jail for life.
                 20 years later, someone else says he did it -- Scott is an
                 adulterer, an asshole, a liar, and a poor excuse for a human
                 being -- but to a judge, he didn't kill Laci.
                 You release Scott Peterson.  The government must pay
                 restitution and clear his legal record.  The payments don't
                 make up for the time lost.  For some people, this would be
                 fair.  So, let's say we had someone truly innocent convicted,
                 like Dr. whatshisface from The Fujitive.  The government would
                 pay restitution, but it wouldn't make up for lost time.  But
                 that's life.  That's not "OK", but it's the best we can do
                 with the system.
                 On the other hand, if you kill Scott Peterson and Dr.
                 Fujitive guy on "beyond reasonable doubt" and they both
                 turn out to be innocent, that's not "OK", and we can actually
                 do better with a "beyond any doubt" restriction on capital
                 punishment.
                 \_ That's just a more roundabout and less intellectually
                    honest way of saying that you're an opponent of capital
                    punishment.