Right on, brother.

Is only a deterent to crime when it is carried out swiftly and publically. Our current system will never do that. Furthermore, you don't want to hsten the death of an innocent person. I propose the death penalty be reserved for only clear cut cases (if they exist)of the most heinous crimes. Someone in the legal system could comment on that issue.

Eye for an eye "justice" is not supported by Jesus Christ who revered all life.
Society is certainly doomed with that barbaric Old Testament thinking.

What is a "clear cut case"? Currently, we prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" to get a conviction. Then, to get the death penalty, we look at mitigating and aggravating circumstances. You would think anyone on death row would already be a clear cut case. However, I keep reading about death row inmates being released due to DNA evidence or something else proving they didn't do the crime.

I wish, just once, that anonymous would come out of the closet. His comment that Jesus would pay no obescience to Judaic Law is short sighted and a cherry pick on the scriptures. It refuses to acknowledge that all men die, and that society has a resonable expectation to freedom from those who wish to play God with other's lives. This debate will go on adnauseum, but it is better that one man die innocently than a whole people fall prey to the dregs of society. And before someone asks, Yes, it could be me, but if my death in innocence would spare the countless lives taken by the guilty, so be it!

I agree with all those that think we should impose the death penalty more liberally, obviously it works. Just look how much lower I crime rates are then those pansy countries that don’t have the death penalty. Oh wait are crime rates are actually much higher that’s right silly me. Well we save money by executing people, oh that’s right it actually cost more to execute people then to give them life without parole. I guess we should not let a little thing like reality get in the way though, carry on.

It is absolutely NOT better that one innocently man die than blablabla. We are not debating setting murders free. We are debating life in prison vs. killing.
The death penalty is not/has never been a deterrent. No criminal has ever thought "I really want to kill someone, but if I get caught I might get the death penalty instead of life in prison, which I could deal with".

Giving mercy to the heartless is what separates us from them.

If we become a monster to deal with a monster, how can we claim to be any better?

The death penalty certainly is a deterrent! When carried out it keeps a convicted killer from killing another inmate. When carried out it also prevents convicted killers from arranging hits on the outside. There was a case in California where a convict up for a retrial on a technicality systematically started ordering hits on the witnesses to keep them from re-testifying. Why aren't those witnesses's lives more valuable than the killers?
To those who say that the death penalty is not a deterrent, how is that provable? How do you count those who in their minds are deterred from killing by the potential penalty? Your theory is plausible but unprovable.

Although I think that the death penalty is appropriate for some crimes, I am deeply troubled by all of the people whose innocence has been proven by DNA evidence, even though they were convicted "beyond all reasonable doubt" in a court of law.

@ediddyot8:25:
Thanks for the name call. It adds so much to the discussion. We are debating the viability of the death penalty. One of the salient considerations of that viability is the probability of an innocent conviction resulting in a death sentence. BTW, it's setting murderers free, not murders free.
I agree that the death penalty does not deter crimes in advance of commission, but it certainly deters future occurance. As long as we defacto enforce capital punishment as life in prison with enless possibility of appeal, it will never be a deterent. My point was that execution of one innocent in the process of permanently removing many guilty is a price I would personally be willing to pay. You Sir, missed the point!!

I got your point, I just think your point is moronic. BTW its endless not enless. See how easy it is to make a spelling error.

Within our legal systems there are said to be certain reasons and purposes for employing the death penalty. It is used to punish offenders, to prevent them ever repeating their misdeed and to deter others. However, if we examine the situation more carefully, we will find that these are not the real solutions.

Harmful actions and their tragic consequences all have their origin in disturbing emotions and negative thoughts, and these are a state of mind, whose potential we find within all human beings. From this point of view, every one of us has the potential to commit crimes, because we are all subject to negative disturbing emotions and negative mental qualities. And we will not overcome these by executing other people.

I used to consider the death penalty a necessary tool of society. But that was back when it was enforced. Now it is just a permanent employment contract for a certain set of attorneys. Because of my belief system which includes reincarnation and karmic consequences for actions, I don't lose much sleep of the early death of vicious predators. An unjust death of an innocent will be balanced in the karmic laws. In time, the mills of God grind slow but fine.

My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this. Therefore, I support those organizations and individuals who are trying to bring an end to the use of the death penalty.

I agree with Anonymous "that it is always possible for criminals to improve." One of the problems with our current death penalty is that by the time it is carried out we are actually executing a very different person than the one who committed the crime. (A troubled teen commits a crime but perhaps a much older and wiser man is executed.) As long as we have secure institutions where these individuals can be kept away from the rest of society, I don't see the necessity of killing them. Also, better to err, keeping someone alive than killing an innocent. You can't "undo" the death penalty once it's been carried out.

And still you remain anonymous, spelling not withstanding. That's moronic.

The point of Dennis’ letter was not to argue against the death penalty. His purpose is the same for every letter he writes—to stir things up and cause contention. And likewise, Joe loves to print them.

While some remain so small as they can only come up with ad hominem attacks, it's altogether refreshing to read some actual thought on this controversial subject.

to SSMD: I don't think there is a statistically perfect way to prove or disprove capital punishment as a deterrent to crime. But within our country, we have the use of CP all the way from zero to whatever Texas is doing these days. If deterrence worked, Texas would be our safest state, and Iowa (no executions in about 45 years) would be much more dangerous. But the actual statistics of murder refute that theory.

Consider too, how many different crimes have been enforced through CP in our history. Everything from witchcraft to livestock rustling to treason and desertion. Dozens of different crimes. What evidence convinces us that NOW, finally, after all this time, we have it all morally right? As a believer, I'm content to let justice be carried out fully in the next life, when justice is ALWAYS accurate and fair. Let's save the money from all the appeals and court costs, too.

Touche'. I should not have called you on spelling, but my point is no more moronic than yours. If I am unwilling to be the innocent, who when caught in the catch 22 of justice, is unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifice for that justice, then I have no right to support the system of capital punishment. The way the death penalty is applied in our legal system is oxymoronic. It is no death penalty at all, but rather a long, slow drain on the legasl system that amounts to a parole by atrition. How can one claim it is no deterrent when it is applied as it is. I don't think it is far-fetched to think that cattle rustlers gave serious thought in the old west to what they were doing when they knew they could get "stretched" on the spot if caught. It is impossible to know how many murders etc. have been deterred by the death penalty, such as it is. If the crime was deterred, it will never appear in statistics, will it? Doesn't mean it wasn't deterred.

The death penalty is similar to preemptive war.
Both are motivated by the false sense of reality that taking violent action today is somehow supposed to deter violent action if the future.
In reality, the opposite occurs. Violence always begets more violence.

The universal law of Karma is completely ignored in this manner of thinking.

Mark B read how "blood of atonement" was applied in Utah.

Your point about cattle rustlers is taken. You are right, the death penalty may cause some petty criminal to reconsider their actions. But we dont kill petty criminals anymore. Now we only kill murderers. And I posit that murderers dont consider the ramifications of their actions. If they did, they wouldnt be murderers.
My anonymity is no less or greater than your handle. Its not like you posted your real name and address.

How one views the death penalty reflects how they view their god.

Some see their god as ruthless, vengeful and wrathful who throws people into everlasting hellfire for their transgressions (because He loves them) -
Others see their god as loving and caring who knows that people make mistakes and should never be deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for their mistakes.

Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan...and the U.S. A few of the only nations left that have the death penalty. Good company.

Do you think that killers are a defined group of people who will collectively be deterred if they suddenly in the act of crime are reminded that they will face a gruesome destiny? Murders are for a large part committed by ordinary people, often close family. It would be more interesting to know what makes people decide to kill than to know what deters them from doing it. In a society where killing is demonstrated as acceptable, be it through entertainment or through certified, public killings, murder as a sollution to personal conflicts will be a lot more accesible choice. Death penalty does not serve any other purpose than to satisfy peoples need for revenge.

To "it's all on how you view God":

Bravo!

It seems many people WANT a vindictive, angry God so that they can justify their own vindictiveness and anger towards their fellow men.

To Jeffrey:

Bingo!

And this will always be a problem in any culture that promises its men that they will someday be a god of their own private planet.

Some insist on playing God now! Power-freaks abound today it appears.

In the days of the old west, stealing a amn's horse or cattle was no petty crime. The act stole his livelyhood and thereby his life. No different than call him a liar, because in the old west a man's word was his bond. If he couldn't be trusted, he had nothing. Ironic, isn't it that such thigs were punishable by death with amzing swiftness. Today, even the most heinous and blatant of crimes cannot seem to find justice no matter how sinister.
Again I make the point. You can never know how many murders have been deterred, because the "non murder" isn't recorded, it is deterred. People in the day still committed murder and rustled cattle, but the value of life was held much dearer. My name is Ed Smith. ediddy is always at the head of my comments as a nickname, though I suppose someone could steal it for their chicken sniping. Now come out of your closet or stop sniping from the cheap seats.

Thanks for some reminders of some of my favorite westerns movies, ediddy.

Now press the fast-forward button and join us in the 21st Century.

So, eddidy -
should Mark Hacking be put to death?

The death penalty is about punishing some for an ultimate crime.

Deterrence should not be a factor at all, but if it deters someone else, great.

It is about justice for the victim.
And Punishment for the perpetrator.

Does the victims life have value?

If so, what value, what price do you give it?

First and formost the judicial system and prison system should be about justice for the victim and punishment for perpetrator.

Life must not be so bad in prison because criminals apparently prefer life there to death.

"thanks" -- Because being alive in the 21st century makes us *so* much better than our ancestors.

"Can't wait" -- It's a little hard to take arguments based on what "God" would supposedly want, from a person who doesn't believe in God in the first place.

Why is executing a felon "playing God"? Your implication is that only "God" (whose existence you reject) has the right to take a life. Really? Why?

Plenty of non-divine beings are perfectly capable of taking human life. Bears, sharks, rattlesnakes, mountain lions, bees, and bacteria manage it just fine. They certainly aren't "playing God," are they?

If you're not "vindictive and angry" towards one of your fellow men who's committed a ghastly murder, there's something seriously wrong with you.

According to a study released Monday by the Texas Dental Association, four out of five dentists in the Lone Star State advocate the use of capital punishment. "About 80 percent of the dentists surveyed recommend brushing three times daily, regular dental check-ups, and death by lethal injection should a prisoner be found guilty of homicide in a court of law," TDA spokeswoman Stacy Gunderson said. "Simply putting criminals in hard-to-reach places isn't enough of a deterrent. Rinsing the scum out of death row is vital for the long-term health of this state." Gunderson then called for justice, and plenty of all-natural sugar-free snacks, to be served.

The New Jersey Assembly recently voted on whether to abolish the death penalty.

Hey, I'm all for the decision, just as long as New Jersey doesn't get rid of the slow, torturous death of a regular prison sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty for retarded individuals.

Even more shocking is the fact that hundreds of these executions were carried out by a Texas governor with a 57 IQ

Though violence has never gone entirely out of style, conventional wisdom over the last several decades has held that it is an unacceptable option. Ever since the anti-war and civil-rights movements of the Vietnam Era, the nation's cultural cognoscenti has regarded the human tendency toward violence as a cowardly, barbaric impulse, shunned by members of civilized society in favor of more diplomatic and compromise-based problem-solving techniques.

Yet, according to recent studies, all that has begun to change.

Increasingly, Americans are turning to violence—the use of brute, animal aggression against an opposing force—as a viable means of conflict resolution. From the inner city to the suburbs, from the boardroom to the bedroom, to the death penalty, violence is making a stunning comeback. And, surveys indicate, more and more Americans are agreeing that it's about time.

Whether hurling chairs at one another on daytime television or stabbing strangers to death in parking ramps for some quick cash, millions of Americans are giving violence a second look as a viable solution to the challenges with which life presents them. And, as savagery and brutality continue to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, one thing is certain: Violence, in all its forms, is no longer confined to the realm of escapist Hollywood dramas or video-game space-invader shoot-'em-ups. Whether we cower in fear behind the walls of gated communities or actively prowl the alleyways looking for rape victims, violence is a major part of our shared American experience, and it isn't going away any time soon.

Violence, it would appear, is something we can all rely on.
And legally putting people to death is violence and as good as it gets.

So, Thomas -
are you advocating putting Mark Hacking to death?

If so, keep us posted as to your progress in this movement.

Was it premeditated murder?

Was his state of mind or intelligence such that did not understand the rightness or wrongness of his actions?

If you answer those questions, then the answer is obvious.

If the eye-for-an-eye philosophy with accompanying automatic death penalty is paramount to Utah conservatives, why did they allow Mark Hacking to continue to stay alive sucking up our valuable tax dollars keeping him in the slammer and pampering him instead of joining his dead wife whom he murdered in one of the most heinous crimes Utah has ever seen?

You should know full well the deals go onall the in trails and court cases.

That's the dirty little secret of the legal system.

People will cop all the time to a plea to a lesser charge, and to anger of victims and victims families.

And these pleas will are accepted by prosecution and many times offered to assure conviction.

It's unfortunate problem of the legal system which all too often denies true justice.