That is exactly how I feel about it. No one is forced to murder. It is a choice, and with options come consequences.
What would you say about someone who knew (without having had the experience) that putting their hand on a hot stove would burn them, and yet did it purposefully and with clarity of mind? Being burnt is the logical and inevitable consequence of the action.
If the logical consequence of 1st-degree murder was execution, I would have no problem with that.
I say lock him up and let greif drive him mad.
cut him up and serve him to the parents. 
All you death-penalty proponents all seem to have one faulty belief: “It can’t happen to me. I’ll never be executed. It’ll always be someone else, but never me.”
I hope some pro-death penalty mook gets strapped into the electric chair for some crime he did NOT commit, begging for his life, screaming his innocence all the way. And then I hope the executioner leans down and whispers, “We know you are innocent. But if we don’t execute you, we may have to let go all the others as well. If we don’t kill you, people just might lose faith in the death penalty. And you wouldn’t want that, would you?”
And then that switch is thrown and the guy dies for what he believes in. Why, he should feel honored.
Wouldn’t you?
Geez, there are some things that even I wouldn’t wish for to make a point.
Ohhhh Jab…man, that plot could’ve been in a Chick Tract!
::shudder::
-David
Why is it that death penalty opponents base their argument against it as always being “they could be innocent”? Well, guess what? They could also be guilty.
Not only could they be guilty, but they are proven to be guilty in a court of law. Now, I am aware that innocent people are wrongly convicted of crimes and imprisoned for it. I am also aware that innocent people have been executed for being wrongly convicted.
But was is the alternative? Do away with imprisonment simply because a minute percent are innocent? Of course not.
The penal system is not perfect. It has its flaws. But it’s all we’ve got.
I’ve never seen a death penalty opponent argue that we need to do away with prison sentences.
Imprisonment, for lack of a better word, is good. Imprisonment is right. Imprisonment works.
However, don’t you dare try to draw a parallel between locking someone up and ending their life. Even for death penalty advocates there is a clear difference (i.e. one gets you life in prison, one gets you the chair/needle/gas.)
Well, I see my mentioning above that Pakistan’s constitution outlaws the punishment originally ordered and that nome of the “revenge is the way to go” folks seems to give a hoot about the law.
Let’s try this again:
a) A neighbour’s daughter has been kidnapped.
b) The child’s body has been found in your van and there’s evidence of extreme abuse in addition to the murder.
c) You left the van’s rear door unlocked.
d) It’s your van and thus we all decide you’re guilty as sin.
e) The law in your state does not provide for the death penalty.
f) What’s the punishment to be?
p.s. I forgot to mention: You’re actually innocent and the only evidence against you is you confessed.
I say surgically remove his arms and legs. That way, he can endure the rest of his life in torture and misery without the benefit of suicide.
“Clatu, Verrata…nector?..neck-tie?”
