And why, exactly, are we so concerned that those who have committed the most horrible crimes suffer a bit before they die? These aren't everyday criminals we are talking about, but sadistic rapists and killers. Why no mention of that? Worse, what we do to animals is of no moment here. We don't strap animals into electric chairs, either, or subject them to firing squads. Does that mean we're treating murderers worse than animals? No. It means we're treating them like murderers.

So you want society to get down on the same level as the condemned person? You and others who share your position want revenge, not retribution. Many death-row inmates have already served a life sentence while they wait for execution. We can do without the death penalty, its problems, and its huge cost. We should join the majority of countries and abolish capital punishment.

<you want society to get down on the same level as the condemned person?>

The death penalty is reserved for heinous murders, generally with fairly specific circumstances (multiple, involving rape, law enforcement officers...). In these cases, the victim generally is not given the benefit of "setting his/her affairs straight" and generally is gunned down or brutalized in some way. Lethal injection seems a somewhat better situation than that.

<You and others who share your position want revenge, not retribution.>

I am not out for revenge, but I do believe that that is definitely a set of criminals that do respond to the possibility of severe retribution.

<Many death-row inmates have already served a life sentence while they wait for execution.>

Would you prefer to limit appeals?

<We can do without the death penalty, its problems, and its huge cost.>

As a policy matter, perhaps you are correct. I have an inate aversion when it comes to government making life and death decisions. However, there are many cases of plea bargains when prosecutors take the death penalty off the table that actually end up causes less court time & money for those cases.

<We should join the majority of countries and abolish capital punishment. >

This is an observation, not an argument. Most other countries don't throw illegally obtained evidence out, don't have the number of appeals for "normal" crimes... Should we really "join the majority of countries" based on a bandwagon mentality.

If democracy dictates ending the death penalty, so be it. For judges to insert what they think is "right" without a historical 8th Amendment basis (at least pre-1970's) is assinine.

I am not trying be a smartie in asking, but, does it really cost more to nuke one than to house, feed, clothe, and provide correctional staff, medical, and social services for someone for 40 years? I doesn't seem possible. Again, I have no idea, I'm honestly asking.

I can suggest a plan that would save everyone a lot of time and money. A few hints, it involves a Cessna with a faulty door, the Bering Sea, and the month of February. Fifteen minutes, on the outside, and the beauty part, there's no clean-up!!!

I know, I'm a horrible person. Don't post back to me, you WILL NOT CHANGE MY MIND!!! I've had other plans that seemed good, but now that I'm in AK, this one seems most practical.

Whatever happened to a life for a life, an eye for an eye? The law of equivalency? I don't want to support people who did such horrible things.

I know everyone says that it isn't an effective deterrent for crime. They're right, it's not. That's because it isn't used properly or enough. If people knew that they weren't going to be able to tie their death sentences up in appeals courts for 30 or more years, I assure you, it would be. People, as a rule, don't want to die. That's why appeals courts are so busy.

Personally, I think the victim's survivors should be able to decide punishment. Of course, for murder, we'd have to set minimum times, but then, up to and including death. Then only people directly involved would be able to have a say. Everyone would win. Except those who never ever want anyone to die at another's hands. Oh wait, that already happened!

How many of those who instead of facing justice, are you willing to pay to keep separated from society for 30-40 years out of your own pocket.

You can look at the fact that the more lenient our society has become on punishing the guilty criminals the more crime we see.....

TruettCollins:

How many of those who instead of facing justice, are you willing to pay to keep separated from society for 30-40 years out of your own pocket.

You can look at the fact that the more lenient our society has become on punishing the guilty criminals the more crime we see.....

More lenient??!! What the heck country are you posting from? It sure as heck isn't the good old US of A, 'cause around here we've already got a prison population that's matched only by third world countries. We get rid of mandatory minimum sentences on minor drug offenses, and strike down the three strike laws, and we can pay to keep all of the real, violent criminals in prison 'till the last trump.

Would you please comment on the numerous individuals that have been sentenced to death and subsequently exonerated, with special attention to those that have already been executed?

Will you also please explain how your desire to inflict painful retribution on these individuals responsible for these ghastly crimes makes you any better than them?

There is something terribly wrong with a social movement that claims so bluntly to care so much about suffering but applies that standard of concern exclusively to a handful of murderers. If these people cared about suffering, explicitly, medical pain, then they would better apply their vast resources and vast social power to eradicating medical suffering experienced by innocent patients. There are many patient cohorts who are chronically subjected to unnecessary medical pain and grotesque, even fatal, complications because we do not adequately regulate the care they receive -- because we do not care enough to do so. We abandon millions of the most medically vulnerable, chronically ill people in this country to substandard treatment at the hands of under-trained technicians (other countries require nurses and other professionals for similar treatments). Here, ironically, the only pain that appears to matter to journalists and activists is the momentary paid felt during an execution: a murderer's discomfort matters more than real suffering experienced by a chronically ill person. Of course, this is just business as usual: nobody believes that complaints about murderer's delicate veins are meant to be sincere, after all. But in the spirit of actually behaving as if the truth matters, DP opponents' willingness to lie about their concerns over medical pain only underscores the extreme elitism and prejudice that enables them to value some lives more than others.

>>I am not trying be a smartie in asking, but, does it really >>cost more to nuke one than to house, feed, clothe, and >>provide correctional staff, medical, and social services for >>someone for 40 years? I doesn't seem possible. Again, I >>have no idea, I'm honestly asking.

Prisoners who have been sentenced to death consume many more court resources in appeals than the convict sentenced to life, under the reasonable premise that if the state is going to kill someone it had better be damn sure it hasn't made any mistakes (and the many exonerated death row convicts vindicates the wisdom of this policy). Court costs - which consume the labor of high-salaried legally trained civil servants, as opposed to the low-salaried labor of corrections officers - are enormously higher than the cost of keeping someone in a secure box for a while.

Additionally, prisoners on death row are more expensive to house while their appeals are heard, as they are generally considered a unique security risk. Finally, the execution itself is expensive, as the state does its best to accommodate the wishes of the victims, who often want to view the execution. This requires special preparations and facilities in order to perform an execution that is both secure and public to the interested parties.

The actual act of execution is cheap - these are drugs that we use to put down animals, after all (or at least used to).

Studies have shown that the cost of capital punishment is higher than the cost of life in prison. I am also of the belief that life in prison is a worse punishment than capital punishment, for the simple reason that in both cases the criminal dies -- only the life-prisoner also has numerous years of confinement to add on to that death. So, overall, I am for going with life-in-prison rather than the death penalty, and would have no problems getting rid of the death penalty altogether.

That said, Lithwick's concern about lethal injection causing momentary suffering is stupid, for the reasons already stated. I guarantee that every single victim of the heinous killers that have been executed had it far worse -- at the very least there was no ability to wind up their affairs and say goodbye to loved ones, even if the actual death happened to be quick and painless.

Thus, to spruce's first comment, yes, there have been many instances where a person on death row was later exonerated, and that's part of why I think the death penalty should be retired. However, there is no doubt that many, many more people actually guilty of their crimes (and, in some cases, guilty of far more than they were actually convicted of) have been executed, and whether they felt some pain during execution is not a cause for concern.

To spruce's second comment, nobody is advocating that we torture those on death row. Nobody wants to go back to the old days of draw-and-quarter or the rack. But insisting that the only way to be "better than" a heinous murderer is to kill them in comfort is silly. We've already proved ourselves better than the killer by granting him several rights, including a right to a jury of his/her peers, plenty of appeals, high standards of proof, and all sorts of other things that he/she never recognized in the victim(s) that died. The killer will have a much better death than the victim(s). Who could ask for more?

I know everyone says that it isn't an effective deterrent for crime. They're right, it's not. That's because it isn't used properly or enough. If people knew that they weren't going to be able to tie their death sentences up in appeals courts for 30 or more years, I assure you, it would be. People, as a rule, don't want to die. That's why appeals courts are so busy.

The vast majority of violent criminals, including murderers, don't carefully analyze the pros and cons of crime. They just do it, impulsively. If they even think about it at all, they assume they won't get caught. Deterrence works for you and me, but not for them.

As far as the death penalty goes, I oppose it because think it demeans us as a culture, but I don't shed any tears when some POS gets executed.

I would be interested to know how you have arrived at the conclusion that "every single victim of the heinous killers that have been executed had it far worse."

This statement is so loaded in so many ways. First, it assumes that everyone that has been executed was guilty, something you, yourself, admit is not the case.

Second, you are assuming only "heinous" crimes receive the death penalty, which is also untrue. There are crimes of passion, robberies gone awry, bad drug deals, etc. None of this excuses these crimes. At the same time, though, we are not talking serial killers or even serial criminals in all cases. In fact, there is numerous evidence that shows the death penalty is arbitrary, at best, and not applied solely to heinous crimes (and in many cases, "lesser" crimes receiving harsher penalties than more "heinous" crimes).

Third, you are appealing to emotion by stating "their victims had it worse." Even if this was demonstrably true (it is not, each case is unique), how in the hell does that make it right? Do you care to argue the merits of the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right?"

Finally, you assume that languishing on death row, going through a painful, drawn out appeals process (which is vital due to the fact that innocent people have ended up on death row), and knowing the exact date and time of your death is somehow favorable to a "sudden" death.

Spruce: Frankly, that innocent people have wound up on death row is not germaine to the discussion of whether pain caused by lethal injection should be a cause for changing the form of execution. I know you are hung up on that one point, but you'll have to stay within the topic, here.

All states have specific statutes for capital punishment, which is usually reserved for murder in the first degree plus certain aggravating factors. "Crimes of passion" describe murder in the second degree, and are not subject to the death penalty. You can talk about things "gone awry" all you want, but juries have to find premeditation and more before the death penalty is applied. Perhaps the defendant thinks/hopes the murder was an accident or a crime of passion, but defendants don't get to be on the jury.

Am I appealing to emotion by pointing out that someone snuffed out suddenly, without warning, and oftentimes painfully has it worse than someone who suffers relatively little (if any) pain and plenty of warning before dying (not to mention getting every opportunity to avoid the penalty)? Gee, I suppose so; along the same lines of waving the "two wrongs don't make a right" flag is similarly an emotional appeal. However, killing someone is not always a wrong. If I kill a would-be killer in self-defense, I am not a murderer. If I kill an enemy soldier in wartime, I am not a murderer. It has been reasoned since Biblical times and before that killing someone who commits a heinous crime is not wrong, but is justice. Thus, your argument is based on a faulty assumption. Is it wrong for me to go out and kill the mother of the man who shot my wife? You bet. That's what your "two wrongs don't make a right" argument applies to. Not executions.

Each state does indeed have its own statutes which apply to death penalty cases. These can be viewed here. However, it is the prosecutors that seek the death penalty in cases and the death penalty can and has been sought in so-called crimes of passion cases.

For instance, in Oklahoma, first-degree murder is based on "malice aforethought." This is defined as:

deliberate intention to take away the life of a human being. As used in these instructions, "malice aforethought" does not mean hatred, spite or ill-will. The deliberate intent to take a human life must be formed before the act and must exist at the time a homicidal act is committed. No particular length of time is required for formation of this deliberate intent. The intent may have been formed instantly before commission of the act. (emphasis added)

In other words, a crime of passion, decided on the spot, constitutes murder in the first degree in the state of Oklahoma.

Second, self-defense and the death penalty are not the same thing, so your comparison is spurious at best. If someone is behind bars and any possible threat to society has thereby by vanquished, the only reason to kill that person is retribution, pure and simple. The same goes for a battlefield.

Speaking of Biblical times, have you read John 8:7. Such concepts of "justice" have also been challenged since time immoral, even by the God of the Christian faith.

The simple fact of the matter is an execution is the deliberate taking of a human life. I think there is a word for that! You know what I mean?

That prosecutors ask for capital punishment on a crime of passion case does not prove that crime of passion defendants get the death penalty. Prosecutors always ask for the most they think they might get -- that's their job. Further, a crime of passion, by definition, does not include any kind of malice aforethought. The classic example is when you walk in on your wife having sex with another man. You get violent, she dies, that's 2d degree murder. However, if you say, "I'm going to kill you for this!" and then kill her, that's no longer a crime of passion. Maybe you find this to be a thin difference, but it is a significant one.

You also are wrong when you assume that someone behind bars is no longer a threat to anyone. Not only do criminals hurt each other (Jeffrey Dahlmer was killed by a fellow inmate, remember), but they can also, on occasion, escape.

Fact is, killing is not, in itself, wrong. You can ignore self-defense all you want, but the fact remains that I can kill someone and not be a criminal. What matters is how that killing occurs. And for thousands of years, the majority view has been that killing a heinous criminal is acceptable. If you want to go Biblical on it, how many people did God kill, hmmm? Yes, execution is the deliberate taking of a heinous criminal's life -- that you don't see this as functionally different from the deliberate taking of an innocent life seems to be part of the problem.