Perhaps everyone who is in prison?
But why do you believe that is person deserves capital punishment?
I believe ones who deserves capital punishment are those who breaks their promises, words , and honor. But it would be too harsh, and there should be mercy upon these people who breaks their promises. What?
So, what kind of person deserves capital punishment, and how should he be punish, and how can mercy involve?
Dan,
Is mercy a virtue? forgiveness? If so, then what does that say of us who punish?
Michael
I don’t think that the view is so much that the capital punishment is deserved (though I could be completely wrong) but rather that the person no longer deserves to live within society, or without. For those whose crimes are forgivable or comprehensible, capital punishment will seldom, at least in the US, provided you’re not black, be handed down. It is not actually the crime that matters, but whether the person has any redeeming value. At least, that’s how I see the societal view on it. And, yes, if I am correct, the societal view is still fucked up.
To touch on Polemarchus’ questions one must probe deeper. The Nietzschean in me would say that mercy to the murderer is only a virtue insofar as I personally hold the power to exonerate him of his wicked deed. Applying this to the victim’s family, while it does not have the authority to legally exonerate the muderer in most cases, it does have the power to morally exonerate him. But does society? The wrong was committed against both.
Paedophiles
Murderers
Terrorists
(There may be more)
Anyone who kills one of the above, gets away with it. Also, anyone who kills a burglar/intruder in their own home doesn’t get prosecuted for that either.
You know it makes sense 
I am with ChimneySweep on this.
So the best way to kill someone is to frame or setup a person who plays the role of a burglar, terroist, or a murder. Not killing somebody and hiding the body. This should be added to the book of Machvelli the prince. 
I thought my openning discussion who hit among your mind but I guess not. I am the confused one.
We’ll never have perfect legal system, so there’ll always be miscarriages of justice. I think the death penalty is good thing to have in the circumstances. One way of thinking about it is that we’re in a war against crime, and in wars innocent people invariably get killed along the way. The challenge is to minimise this number, whilst still persuing the campaign.
My philosophy is “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” It seems to me that hard work and dedication should be awarded accordingly, for example. On the same token, the one who regards another’s life as invaluable by ending it has earned recompense of the same sort. The murderer forfeits his life.
you would then support meritocracy. A nation base on merits.
chimney~
IT seems that you know what is a perfect legal system, written in your heart. why not look for a position in politics? so you can make the system better. Or why would you say our legal system is not perfect?
tfd: after the creationism discussions, I’m pleased that we agree on something!
dan: there’s a difference between an optimum system and a perfect system. No legal system I could ever devise for the human race would be perfect.
I’m not an expert in legal matters, and I’m not interested enough in them to go anywhere with my common-sense views. Even if I did become a successful “public figure” of one sort or another, I don’t think I could get the death penality re-established in the UK in my lifetime.
The death penalty is a more effective deterrent of crime than the slap-on-the-wrist system. Capital punishment needs be reintstitutionalized there. The abandonment of capital punishment should come as no surprise since the UK abandoned its Protestant lineage long ago. It is a bit hypocritical for the UK parliament and Tony Blair to send troops into Iraq and not have the death penalty in their own country. Not only do I personally support a merit based system of government, but in the form of recompense for crimes, I support punishment in the manner that it was first bestowed upon the victim. Criminals should know that if they jab their victim’s eyes out with a knife then, appropriately, their eyes be removed in the same manner. Just imagine how effective this manner of punishment would be as a disincentive against violent crime. It is unfair for a criminal that left his victim permanently lame not be made also. Why should he serve time in jail and keep his appendages? Jail sentences as punishment for crime are not well-suited as effective deterrents. The amount of jail time that should be served is all subjective and it can change at a whim of the law. The “eye for an eye” philosophy of justice is a much fairer system because the criminal determines his own punishment at the time he commits his crime. No one decides how he should be punished for his crime.
Sorry, I didn’t realize the request was for opinions only. Well, in that case I think only advocates of the death penalty should get the death penalty.
It’s an easy system to implement. You just ask the convicted criminal, “Do you support the death penalty?” If he or she responds affirmatively, kill 'em. If not, sentence the criminal to the appropriate non-capital punishment. It doesn’t matter whether the criminal was found guilty of petty larceny or genocide. If the criminal advocates the death penalty, he or she gets it. Quite simple.
I’m sure at least one of you is asking how someone can advocate such an ostensibly arbitritary system of punishment. Well, you see, I’m looking at a more fundamental issue than the crime that was committed. I’m looking at the personal beliefs of the individual found guilty of the crime.
As an example, if you truly believe that the person who is pointing a gun at you is going to kill you, then you probably feel justified in killing that person. Your personal belief shields you from the consequences of killing another person, usually. Objectively, it doesn’t matter whether that person had no intention of ever pulling the trigger, was incapable of doing it, or whether the gun was even loaded. Your subjective belief that your life was threatened is usually enough to allow you to walk away without punishment.
Analogously, if someone’s subjective belief is that no one should be killed for committing any crime, then how can we rightfully kill that person for committing a crime.
It is going to happen when some innocent person will face capital punishment, either from a good master mind, or a poor judge.
I agree, Dan. Judges should be paid more.
That really is tremendous logic. I want to kill you right now! (Not really, but for the sake of argument.) Ultimately, I do end up killing you (in a very painful manner.) I dont believe in the death penalty. In fact, I dont believe I should be punished at all! I believe that I should be punished only if I think that I should; but I don’t. I believe that since I killed you, I deserve a large sum of money. The government gives me a large sum of money for killing you. Now that is a justice system I would support!
Do you know, tfd, I had that exact idea a few weeks ago (punishing with the offence itself). It’s definitely worth exploring, if not advocating.
yopele: I naturally oppose your reactionary post. Perhaps the main argument against it is that you’re advocating non-equality before the law. That the punishment for crime X should be the same for everyone is self-evidently right.
I don’t understand your later stuff.
In plato republic guardians and judges should not be paid. In order to fulfil their duties better.
Chimney and TFD,
I wasn’t being serious. I chose a position and then attempted to defend it while typing. It’s a good exercise, I guess; but I don’t want to waste too much of your time by continuing to defend it.
Ha! Okay.
Chimney,
If I haven’t misquoted you, of course I disagree with this. And you may consider what follows in this paragraph to be a parethetical comment. Naturally, I realize that at this point you have no reason to believe that I’m not just leading you down another path that will result in you being unsatisfied in the end because I don’t hold the conviction that I have led you to believe I hold. From my perspective, I can only offer one defense - Never before have I felt moved to assume a position simply to stimulate someone to proffer some reasonable argument for or against something. I did here because the post addressed an immediate life-and-death issue, and the responses were devoid of any justification, aside from the response that I intend to address, weakly, now.
AGAIN
I could say that if a three-year-old steals your purse, he or she should not receive the same punishment as a college student. This would explain why I “of course” disagree with your statement. But you obviously made an absolute statement that you may or may not support. If you do support it, then the conversation will probably end. But if, as I suspect, you believe that Like Crime should be punished as Like Crime, ie, two twenty-year-olds who rob a liquor store should be punished identically, then we’ve probably found room for disagreement that isn’t as self-evident as you see it.
I guess now you have to decide whether it’s worth your time to discuss the issue with me, and, as important, if I can take it seriously.