I'm not saying it doesn't happen from time to time. I'm sure it does. But I don't think there's any way you can seriously think that it happens more often than the the "Oh my God, I'm actually going to die for what I did" type of repentance of executed killers. I know when it comes right down to it we're both kinda running blindly on our assumptions a bit here. I'm assuming that imminent death stirs the emotions of killers, and you're assuming time alone does. But I think human nature is more on my side here. I can't think of anyone whose emotions wouldn't be stirred by the prospect of imminent death. But I can think of more than a couple people who have done bad things and have remained remorseless about them for very long periods of time.

This idea that we put guys in prison for life without the possibility of parole to "rehabilitate" them strikes me as absolutely absurd on its face. What would be the point in rehabilitating someone who is never going to set foot amongst decent society ever again in his entire life?

Remember, we're not talking about executing anybody who commits any kind of murder. We're talking about what to do with the worst offenders, where basically the choice is solely between locking them up forever or executing them. I don't see how you can say it's anything but punishment either way. Rehabilitation is something that only matters for people who actually have a chance of getting back out into the outside world one day. I don't think it has any place in a death penalty debate unless you're going to advocate the possibility of parole for even the worst of offenders.

We're talking about remorse and repentance for the crime they committed, a realization and understanding of what they did and why it's wrong. Not people feeling bad because they're about to die, which in most people is probably going to lead to the selfish kind of introspection. 'I'm fucked now, poor me, wish I wasn't in this situation'

The difference is that in one case the guy is dead, his life is ended - in the other he's alive, and though his life is very different he can still lead a worthwhile one. I suppose now you're going to tell me that if you were faced with the choice of being executed or being locked up in a prison for life, you'd say 'whatever man, same difference'

i want to go to the prisoners and tell them about God, you have to take classes to do this though :)

It's God's fault they kill people in the first place - all part of his 'plan'

i'm sorry if i missed it, but i still don't see where you explained how the possibility that a criminal may feel remorse or suddenly grasp responsibility for his actions right before we kill him is beneficial to anyone. your keen interest in the personal/interior intellectual and emotional state of a doomed criminal makes it seem like you harbor some sort of fantasy about the possibility of society wielding absolute control over an individual - a concept that is fundamentally at odds with the notion of civilization itself. a scenario in which a person who has committed a horrible crime finally sees the light solely because of and immediately preceding their own death at the hand of their fellow man is especially sadistic.

because that guy's life is his own, not "decent society's."


it's very simple: in one scenario, society respects the absolute sovereignity of the individual and his or her life, no matter what. in the other, society is given arbitrary eminent domain over the life of the individual.

no. rehabilitation benefits the individual first. whether that person is ever allowed back into society is secondary to the quality of life of the individual in question. for that person there is a difference between spending the rest of their life as a damaged, dysfunctional human, or as a healthy, fully-functioning one, whether or not they are behind bars.

The death penalty is an illogical and impractical tool used by the base and uncivilized.

Okay, if executing someone is likely to make them feel the "wrong" kind of remorse, then what is it about locking them up that will make them feel the "right" kind, or any kind at all for that matter? I don't see how being imprisoned for life is somehow supposed to make someone any more introspective than they otherwise would. They could just as easily fall into the "Woe is me" trap too.

But if his life can be worthwhile, then why give him a sentence of life without parole? Why throw away a potentially "worthwhile" person to rot out of the sight of all society forever? That makes no sense. I'm somewhat of the mind that the potential worth of an offender's life is at least partially measured by the severity of their crime. If you commit a crime that's so bad that people limit their decision on what to do with you to either throwing you in jail without a key or killing you, then I think your potential for a "worthwhile" life has already been decided.

It depends on what kind of life in prison we're talking about. If it's the "sit in in a blank room for 50 years devoid of human contact and maybe you'll think about what you've done" kind, then I'd say it's same difference. But if it's your "sit in a room for 50 years and 'rehabilitate' as you rot away so that you're a well-rounded, 'worthwhile,' all-around kinda guy whenever you finally kick it" then I'd probably say that sounds like a much better deal. But I question why the latter would be considered a viable punishment for a crime otherwise punishable by death.

It's no different than a guy sitting in a cell for 50 years and then having a similar revelation shortly before he kicks over of old age. The benefit of that situation has seemed to be self-evident to everyone in the thread thus far, so I don't see why it's so hard to grasp when it comes to executions.

How is locking them away the rest of their lives and rehabilitating them any different? You can't seriously tell me that divesting someone of their liberty completely and coaxing changes in character isn't an example of the state controlling a person all but completely.

I don't see what's sadistic about it. It's not that anyone likes having to execute people. If people had their druthers, they'd just as soon not be put in that position.

How is depriving someone of liberty any less of a slight to an individual's sovereignty? And how is it any less "arbitrary" than the death penalty? The fact of the matter is that the individual's sovereignty is not absolute. It can be impinged upon when the individual runs afoul of society's laws. There's nothing arbitrary about it.

Why should the state expend any of it's power or resources for the primary purpose of benefiting an individual (particularly one who has egregiously violated the laws and the rights of their fellow man)? Isn't that the worst kind of abuse of state power? The state is supposed to serve the interests of society as a whole, and I don't see how a murderer living out a healthy, fully-functioning life in prison serves society's interest in any way whatsoever. The idea that committing a capital crime should be a catalyst for a person to better themselves (all on the state's dime) so that they live a fulfilling life in prison for the rest of their days is absurd. Why not use those resources to "rehabilitate" the lives of law abiding individuals? (EDIT: or even non-law abiders who actually have a shot of getting back out into society?)

No doubt there will be some 'woe is me' self-pity when they realize they're locked up for the rest of their life, but as time passes and they become used to that situation they'll have time to ruminate on it, and think about all the aspects such as why they're in there, what life means and what it is to be deprived of it, ultimately what they've done and why and how that fits with their conscience. And then changes occur, and they can do positive things. That's the idea behind rehabilitation, and it does happen - not in every case, but it does happen. If they're busy being executed they'll have other things to fill that time with

Because the prison term is what rehabilitates them. It's the process.

I think you'll find that human contact, regular meals, and the opportunity to study and create things would all be part of your life to some degree. And it's not simply 'punishment', and you're trying to argue that capital punishment is inherently acceptable in society, so why have an alternative. Are you in favor of corporal punishment for less serious crimes?

Like I said, I'm sure it does happen. But again, what makes it any more likely to happen for a person in prison for life than it would be for someone on death row? Keep in mind, people generally have plenty of time for self-reflection on death row too. It takes at least a decade or two to get from sentencing to sentence. How much time do you think these people really need to reflect before they achieve the "right" state of contrition? And does it really matter if they die sitting in a room after they rehabilitate or if they die in a gas chamber?

But a process to what end? What possible good is a rehabilitated murderer sitting alone in a 6x8 cell going to do anyone? Why even put forth that effort? Just to pat ourselves on our back and say we did it? Rehabilitation for the sake of putting guys back into society where they can be functional citizens is one thing, but rehabilitation for the sake of rehabilitation doesn't make any sense. I know it's a warmer and more fuzzy thing to do for someone than executing them, but surely that can't be the driving consideration here.

I'm not saying "why have an alternative at all." Alternative punishments are fine, but to be true alternatives they need to serve the same purpose as what they're replacing. Maybe life in prison without parole is a severe enough punishment for a lot of crimes...and maybe jailhouse rehabilitation can serve some purpose for people who aren't the worst of the worst. But when someone commits a crime so bad that the option of putting them to death is a serious consideration, a crime society has largely deemed beyond anything but punishment, it makes no sense that rehabilitation would even begin to be a consideration. If there are better punishments, then so be it. But allowing the possibility of rehabilitation is a bit of light reaction to the very worst of crimes against society.

As for corporal punishment, I am not in favor of it. If we're talking about crimes less serious than the capital crimes that could lead to a death sentence, then I think it's fair enough to think that the whole prison/rehabilitation thing is a viable option.

yah, here in Ontario the cops are now able to be judge, jury, and 'executioner' when it comes to speeding. if we're already eliminating the courts for some crimes, let's do it for all crimes!

Corganist has both Mariner and Devious arguing with him. Good luck my friend! See you in 11 pages.

i'm done arguing with someone who doesn't see the difference between natural causes and lethal injection

I never said I didn't see the difference. But you asked how a killer becoming remorseful or repentant just before execution would benefit anyone. Yet, you seem to take it as a given that there'd be some benefit to a killer becoming remorseful or repentant just before dying in prison of natural causes. To me, the benefit is the same either way.

Because with incarceration that's it - that's what you're facing for the rest of your life, it's your existence and really there's no way but forward. On death row you're counting down to losing your life, with a fixed number of days to go, and the worst is always yet to come - it's a different atmosphere. Don't forget, what you were saying was that it's a huge assumption to think that people locked up for life even think about what they've done, and that people being executed have a sudden flash of introspection and remorse in their last moments. And like Mariner said, that last sentence really shows you're missing the whole point.

For one thing, rehabilitation doesn't necessarily involve reintroducing people to society completely - you're saying 'I think this is the goal and it doesn't meet it so why bother.' Secondly it's the difference between a society that sets out to punish people (including killing them) and a society with higher moral standards. You even agree that corporal punishment is unacceptable, even though as a form of punishment it's quicker and cheaper than locking people up

Obviously. But that doesn't really answer my question, does it? What I asked is what makes the former more conducive to a "true" kind of introspection and remorse than the latter.

And we're still at square one on that one. Face it, you don't have any more insight into the psyche of a guy imprisoned for life than I do the psyche of a guy with a needle going into his arm. But notice, no one's really argued that a death row guy isn't likely to feel remorse in his last moments, only that it would be the "wrong" kind of remorse. You haven't really made any kind of case that incarceration leads to the "right" kind of remorse any more often than a death sentence. We're both kinda playing the "Well if I were in that situation, this is how I would feel..." game, but I still think I'm on more solid ground here.

What point? That killing is bad and the state shouldn't ever do it? If that's what you guys wanna argue then do it. But don't throw out this garbage about the benefits of allowing capital criminals to live out healthy and fulfilling lives and expect it to be taken seriously. There's a big difference between wanting to lock up guys forever because there's some inherent societal good in it, and wanting to do so so you can say "at least we're not killing them."

I'm not saying "why bother." I'm asking it. What is the goal if it's not re-introduction into society? If these people have such potential that their lives should not be snuffed out by the state, then why does that potential play no role in preserving their liberty to any extent?

I don't think there's anything inconsistent there. You're making it out as though if a society decides that one type of crime is beyond anything but punishment, then that principle has to extend to all lesser crimes. I'm not deriding the entire idea that time in prison can rehabilitate someone, or saying that the only point of the criminal justice system should be punishment. But I think as crimes get more severe, the ratio of punishment to rehabilitation gets larger, and that when you get to the top of the pyramid, you're left with crimes that one cannot be anything but punished for. Just because we punish (and not rehabilitate) someone for raping and killing a child, for instance, doesn't mean we should have to do anything similar to someone who steals a candy bar.

You sound like a 15 year old who has just discovered George Bush

thats exactly what he is

Uh like I said in the first post, it's been demonstrably shown that in many cases people do feel remorse, they reform and try to make amends and do something postitive with their life, even if there's no hope of them ever leaving prison. What you're claiming is that this is a huge assumption, but that people definitely do the same thing in their last moments before execution, even though nobody's really gotten their thoughts on the subject since they're usually somehow dead a short time later. Obviously we can assume they're going to feel regret, since they're being executed. You're the one assuming they're likely to be sad about the victim of their crime, and not the fact they're about to die. And you somehow think there's more evidence and likelihood of this in people being executed than in people serving life sentences

Well you've found the point at least, even though you seem to be a bit confused about it. 'Yarr, what be that forming in the mists ahead?!'

They have restricted liberty

Why isn't corporal punishment an option though? If someone's guilty of assault, or rape, why no beatings, no torture? If one criminal is given the death penalty for a crime involving one victim, why wouldn't a greater punishment be given to someone who committed a similar crime with more victims - say, flaying followed by a slow death? Now you have a larger scale of punishments, and cheaper alternatives to costly prison sentences. So just answer me this - why don't we do those things?

lol stupid fucks
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/...rss_topstories


'Megan's Law' killer escapes death under N.J. execution ban



TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- The man who raped and killed 7-year-old Megan Kanka -- the 1994 crime that inspired "Megan's Law" -- is one of eight men whose sentences were commuted to life in prison this week as part of New Jersey's new ban on execution.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS...quas.njdoc.jpg Megan Kanka's killer, Jesse Timmendequas, is among eight men whose sentences were commuted to life.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/...t_gray_btn.gif http://www.cnn.com/.element/img/2.0/...anger/next.gif
http://www.cnn.com/.element/img/2.0/...er_wire_BL.gif



The Garden State on Monday became the first state in more than three decades to abolish the death penalty after a commission ruled the punishment is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."

Gov. Jon Corzine the day before commuted the sentences of eight men sitting on the state's death row. They will now serve life in prison without parole, according to the governor's office.

Among the eight is Jesse Timmendequas, 46, who was sentenced to death in June 1997 for Megan's murder.

Prosecutors said Timmendequas lured Megan to his home by saying he wanted to show her a puppy. He then raped her, beat her and strangled her with a belt. A day later, he led police to her body.

"Megan's Law," introduced after her death, requires that authorities notify neighbors when a sex offender moves into an area. Timmendequas had twice been convicted of sex crimes -- on 5- and 7-year-olds -- before he murdered Megan.

In signing Monday's bill, Corzine called it a "momentous day" and made New Jersey the first state to ban capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.

• Lawmakers vote to abolish death penalty

"It's a day of progress for the state of New Jersey and for the millions of people across our nation and around the globe who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous, crime of murder," Corzine said.

Society is not forgiving criminals, the Democratic governor insisted, but the law is necessary because "government cannot provide a fool-proof death penalty that precludes the possibility of executing the innocent." http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/...tabs/video.gif Watch Corzine sign the document »

"Society must ask," he continued, "is it not morally superior to imprison 100 people for life than it is to execute all 100 when it's probable we execute an innocent?"

The state Assembly approved the measure Thursday by a 44-36 vote after the Senate OK'd it 21-16.

New Jersey has not executed a prisoner since 1963.

The new legislation replaces the death penalty with life in prison without parole. The bill was introduced in November after a state commission concluded capital punishment was an ineffective deterrent to crime.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/...ertisement.gif



Since the Supreme Court's reinstatement of the death penalty, almost 1,100 people have been executed in 37 states. http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/...nteractive.gif See the death penalty by state »

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, New Jersey joins 13 states and the District of Columbia that do not use execution as a means of punishment. E-mail to a friend http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/...util/email.gif

I haven't read this thread but I bet this has something to do with the mob

That's not what I'm assuming at all. Let me boil it down.

Life imprisonment: Criminal might feel the "good" remorse ("I'm soooooooo sorry"), the "bad" remorse ("Poor me, I'm stuck here forever. Wish I hadn't got caught."), with no guarantee he'll feel either one. For all anyone knows, he'll enjoy his rehabilitation and thus think killing the victim was the best thing that ever happened to him. Or he might never give his crime or the victim a second thought.

Execution: Criminal is very likely to at least feel the "bad" remorse ("I don't wanna die") and is probably at least as likely to feel the "good" remorse as he would be spending his life in prison.

Basically my proposition is do you want your worst-of-the-worst killers to almost certainly feel some kind of remorse...or do you want to roll the dice that maybe they will at some indeterminable point in the future? I think society has no interest served by just locking a guy up and merely hoping he feels regret one day. If he doesn't regret anything, then what's the point?

If your point is "killing is bad" then I don't see why you're not arguing it instead of trying to sell the virtues of life imprisonment. Just say "life imprisonment is the better option because it's the option that keeps blood off society's hands" if that's what you really think, and we'll go from there (Even though it'd take us into some pretty airy arguments about the ability of the state to impinge upon fundamental individual rights...blah blah blah, and probably wouldn't go anywhere useful in the end). But this "we can rehabilitate these killers and help them build positive fulfilling lives....yay!" line of argument just doesn't hold any water. Like I said, supporting life imprisonment because it's not the death penalty is one thing, but supporting it because it's somehow inherently good in and of itself is another story.

What does that even mean? You might as well relabel the death penalty "restricted life." And it doesn't answer my question. Again, if these criminals have such an upside that it would be wrong for the state to kill them, then why doesn't that upside play any role in determining the extent to which their liberty is "restricted"? Why keep a guy alive to rehabilitate if all he can do to make the world a better place is pace around in a 6 foot concrete cell? I think that if you truly believe in the idea that capital criminals can be rehabilitated into functioning worthwhile people, it's almost imperative that you'd support granting them parole.

Don't get me wrong, I think life in prison without parole is a perfectly viable option for certain types of criminals. There are definitely people out there who will prove to be more well suited to an institutional setting, and locking them up forever and helping them make the best of it is probably the best option for society (and the individual, even though that's purely incidental in my opinion). But I'm thinking more along the lines of habitual violent offenders who have proven that they are incapable of functioning in decent society after having multiple chances to rehabilitate. But I think the equation has to change when we're talking about someone who commits a single act (or series of acts) so abhorrent to society that the only option is making good and sure that they never breathe free air again one way or the other. There's a difference between how you treat someone merely unable to function in decent society and someone who is all but cast out of it.

Because there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to punishment. Sure, someone might be a little more contrite before a slow painful death than they would before the usual non-cruel and non-unusual variety...but not enough to justify dipping into sadism. And just because society deems a crime worthy of a harsh punishment doesn't mean that it has to use the harshest punishment imaginable. Morality can and should play a part in drawing lines of appropriate conduct, but it shouldn't cut off society's ability to punish crime at the knees.

And again, for crimes lesser than murder prison time is probably more than sufficient. Corporal punishment may be quicker and cheaper, but since when has that ever been a consideration in the criminal justice system? It's worth the time and expense to at least try and process low level offenders through the system with a little more than punishment in mind if it means they can get their shit straight eventually and not commit more serious crimes down the road.

You're missing the point. It's not about trying to make the criminal feel bad in *some* way - if that's your aim then corporal punishment sounds like a great idea, you'd probably even get people to cry a bit. Now that's REMORSE GOLD! The point is getting them to realize what society already knows - that what they did was wrong, and why

They're connected issues, since we're talking the roles of punishment and rehabilitation and whether society believes that pure revenge is an acceptable form of justice. We also don't lock people in a box with nothing to do for the rest of their lives

Yeah, see, that's not what actually happens. They can study, learn, write, communicate with people. They can think about what they've done, come to terms with it, maybe reach out and try to make amends directly or by giving something back to society, actually making a contribution. It's not freedom but it's a degree of liberty, and it's a chance. I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between that and killing someone

So you support locking up habitual violent offenders forever - 'making sure they never breathe free air again' - but when you have someone else who you want to make sure 'never breathes free air again' they need to be killed? Where's the consistency - if the first group have no chance of getting back into society, surely you think they should be killed too?

People would argue that corporal punishment helps ensure people 'get their shit straight' and that it's a stronger deterrent than jail time - so that's not an adequate explanation for why we don't use it in our society (and you'll be aware that is is used in other societies, usually along with the death penalty). You're closer with your sadism remark, but you seem to have no problem with deeming execution an acceptable punishment in the justice system, while saying 'but causing the guy pain would be wrong'. So their humanity is a moral concern when it comes to their pain and suffering, but not when it comes to wiping them out

ummmmm...what in the name of doublespeaking Goebbels is this?

It seems the only argument you can make for life imprisonment without parole is "maybe hopefully one day if fate allows it the killer might actually feel bad about what he did...and if he doesn't, oh well." I mean, sure, I agree that if you lock guys up for a long enough time then at least a few will reflect upon things the right way eventually. But what I don't understand is if the "right" kind of reflection is what we want, why you think life imprisonment is a better way of getting it than any other way. You can tell me it's different than the death row reflective experience, but that doesn't make it better. It could just as well make it worse for all you know. Maybe time in jail hardens these guys up and allows them to shut out their past. Who knows?

But we're talking about a very limited spectrum of cases here. I don't think rehabilitation has any connection at all to the discussion of justice in capital cases. Obviously rehabilitation is a big factor in the dispensation of justice for lesser crimes, but that doesn't mean it's a factor in all dispensation of justice.

You're still avoiding my question. Even if I were to accept that all these wonderful amenities bestowed upon these people for heinously killing someone made them wonderful people who can contribute something positive to society, then why only grant them a "degree" of liberty for the rest of time? Or let me put it this way: all rehabilitation aside, why do you think it's necessary to lock someone up for the rest of their life and never let them out?

There's a difference between what society can't live with and what it won't live with. There are going to be some people society just wants isolated from law abiding people because they can't behave, and then there are other people who commit acts that would have society just rather not even acknowledge their existence. For instance, a guy who repeatedly molests 7 year olds obviously would probably be the type of guy we'd want locked up and away from kids forever. People would probably consider that a perfectly good use of a prison cell. But surely you can see how the situation would change if he had raped, mutilated, and dismembered one of those 7 year olds. Suddenly, the idea of letting him live out his days in that same cell seems a little lax. I don't see how you can say that's inconsistent in any way.


I think the acceptability of the punishment itself is a separate issue from the issue of how the punishment is carried out. Just because a certain punishment is called for doesn't mean it can be dished out any old way.

When a mosquito lands on your arm and bites you, would you be more likely to A) slap and kill it with your hand or some object, or B) capture it and slowly pull its legs and wings off one by one? (or C) capture it and "rehabilitate" it until it apologizes :D ) I think most right thinking people wouldn't think twice about choice A, but would be pretty squeamish at the prospect of choice B. I think the same principle kind of applies to the execution of criminals. Not that I'm trying to say criminals should be as expendable as insects or anything like that. Obviously a lot more thought goes into killing a man than killing a mosquito, but regardless of that, once the decision gets made to end a creature's life, there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

Besides, it's not as if anyone likes having to execute people. The care to not cause undue pain and suffering in administering justice is just as much for the punisher as it is the punished.

That's liberal code for "we don't like this, but we have no real legal precedent or principle to back up our position, so we'll just make something up."

Oh, so now you agree that some people will become repentant. Look, I don't know how much simpler I can put this - the goal is repentance, for the criminal who has committed an act that is unacceptable in the eyes of society to realize that for himself, and hopefully go some way towards giving something back. It's the difference between trying to reason with someone who disagrees, and punching them in the face and saying 'fuck off, you don't exist'. This is society taking a moral stance. Making someone feel bad simply for the sake of it doesn't have that same value, and is simply a component of punishment and revenge.

This is circular logic - execution is purely punishment with no aspect of rehabilitation, so obviously capital crimes (which result in execution) are divorced from the concept of rehabilitation. This isn't inherent - if stealing candy bars were a capital crime, there would be no concept of rehabilitation connected with that crime either. That doesn't mean you can't discuss whether it should be the case, and if outright, ultimate punishment is an acceptable thing for society to carry out.

Funny how you launch this question and then follow it up with:

Hmm? Why lock people up forever with no chance of getting out? What's the point? Wait no that's totally ok actually, in some other cases I've decided are appropriate!

So basically you do agree with the idea, you've just decided that there's a line that compels society to kill anyone who crosses it. People who 'society can't or won't live with' are both taken out of society, but according to you some of them must be killed, according to some inherent moral absolute. What exactly commands society to execute people? And why not kill everyone who's to be 'taken out of society' for the rest of their lives?

Great analogy. We're talking about degrees of punishment for degrees of severity of a crime. I can think of any number of examples where people would retaliate to extremes depending on what happened. What you're basically saying is that some crimes are so terrible that the criminal must be executed, but that even worse crimes should not receive any greater punishment (which is possible), and that harming a criminal to any lesser degree than death is wrong. You're drawing some very strong moral lines there, care to back them up with some solid justification?

lol

I've been saying that all along. The only thing I've really questioned is how often it can be counted on to happen. Guys can (and do) become genuinely repentant on death row too, ya know. How is it that the fact that "some people" will become repentant due to being incarcerated for life is somehow a stronger argument to you than the fact that "some people" become repentant on death row or in the execution chamber? You've done nothing to distinguish the two situations and tell me why the former is better than the latter.

So are we "punishing" and exacting "revenge" upon the criminals who don't realize the error of their ways, who don't feel remorse, and spend their entire lives in incarceration feeling bad that they got caught and lamenting their loss of freedom rather than their poor decisions? How is their empty remorse any different or better than the empty remorse of someone being executed? What if they never feel any remorse at during their incarceration? What purpose has the justice system served in that situation? Isn't empty remorse as a near guaranteed minimum better than the chance of ending up with nothing at all?

I don't get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that the concept of what's considered to be a "capital" crime is somehow off base or arbitrary? Or that rehabilitation should always be an option because there's really no such thing as a "capital crime" worthy of nothing less than punishment?

I know why I think it's okay to lock people up for the rest of their lives in some cases. I want to know why you (who is so smitten with the idea of rehabilitation for all) would call for such a thing. You keep dancing around the question though and deflecting, but I'm not going to stop asking you until I get an answer, because my question goes to the heart of things here. So again, tell me why you think some people should be kept in jail forever no matter how "rehabilitated" they become or what positive things they can do.

You're putting words in my mouth. I haven't said society is compelled to do anything, or that anyone must be killed. All I'm talking about is what's within the realm of what can be allowed. We don't have to execute killers, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it either.

You're all over the map here. Earlier in your post you were seemingly suggesting that there's really no crime severe enough to warrant pure punishment, and now you're suggesting that some crimes are so severe that to punish them society would have to stoop to depraved levels. Which one is it? Should we not punish criminals because punishment isn't the right thing to do? Or should we not punish them because we just aren't willing to take our punishments past the point of diminishing returns?

And again, I'm not saying that it's a moral imperative to execute certain criminals. I'm not exactly sure how you've managed to read that into what I'm saying. There's nothing "wrong" with giving out punishments less than death for capital crimes if that's the way people want it. If a society thinks justice can be served with less punishment, then they're free to think that way. But all the same, there's nothing "wrong" with the idea that the death penalty may better serve a society's sense of justice either. I mean, we're talking about a concept that runs all the way from "slap on the wrist" to "slow painful death." Surely we can agree that true justice for the crimes we're talking about falls somewhere between those extremes, right? Do I really need to explain why I don't think torturing people to death is a very good thing? I'm not asking you to explain why you don't think that just telling murderers "don't do that again, get your act together and run along now" is a good idea.