NationStates Jolt Archive

what the hell has the world come to?

we used to execute with a $5 rope, now we have to gently put them to sleep and make sure there isnt any pain involved in the execution?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/bc.na.gen.us.cultleader.ap/index.html

if i ever get in trouble with the law i will make sure i try that excuse. "im sorry officer, i can not do my punishment. i think it will hurt too much"

I think it's time for a new painless form of capital punishment. What about crushing? I doubt there'd be much time to suffer if somebody dropped a 50 ton weight on top of you. :)

Best of all, they can just hose you away afterward. :D

Why not go back to the days of the firing squad. There isn't much comparison to a $0.19 bullet.

Why not go back to the days of the firing squad. There isn't much comparison to a $0.19 bullet.

True, but a rope is reuseable. *nod*

Go back to the axe

Or you could put an end to the death penalty.

I think if I had to choose my execution, it would be by firing squad.

Why don't you, y'know, eliminate the barbaric practise altogether?

Why don't you, y'know, eliminate the barbaric practise altogether?

And indulge in the oh so less barbaric practice of caging a person so they will never know freedom again, with every aspect of their life controlled by others, kept in a brutal system until they die of old age after a lifetime of captivity.

Why don't you, y'know, eliminate the barbaric practise altogether?

How is putting someone in prison cell untill he dies less barbaric?

Why don't you, y'know, eliminate the barbaric practise altogether?


well he started it by killing people, boil the fucker in oil for all i care, he doesn't deserve to continue breathing

And indulge in the oh so less barbaric practice of caging a person so they will never know freedom again, with every aspect of their life controlled by others, kept in a brutal system until they die of old age after a lifetime of captivity.

True but at least they have a chance to prove their innocence for that entire time.

And indulge in the oh so less barbaric practice of caging a person so they will never know freedom again, with every aspect of their life controlled by others, kept in a brutal system until they die of old age after a lifetime of captivity.


Yes of course if the crime merits the punishment.

the giljotine FTW

True but at least they have a chance to prove their innocence for that entire time.

So the argument against the death penalty is that the guy might be innocent? We should keep draining our tax dollars in overcrowded prisons for every single convict in the country just because they -might- be innocent?

Pretty crappy reason. I'd rather kill one innocent guy along with every guilty guy as opposed to not killing any guilty guys at all.

The greatest benefits of putting someone in prison for the rest of their lives is giving them a chance to prove their innocence while being able to use them as a cheap labor force.
Unfortunately, my country considers it to barbaric to even take rights from criminals and so they can get married, access the internet, educate themselves and eat lots of free food with the taxpayers money.

Yes of course if the crime merits the punishment.

Oh I'm not saying don't punish the bastards. I just think any arguement against the death penalty on the basis of it being barbaric, when the alternative is a human caged for the rest of their life has a serious flaw in it. "It's too barbaric! use this barbaric punishment instead".

The only real arguement against it (for me) is that it kinda makes it hard to end their punishment if it turns out they were innocent, and also makes punicheing the real killer a bitch too. I am normally against the death penalty, but in cases of overwealming evidence - video, dna, witnesses, fingerprints, blood evidence, etc etc I am happy for it to be applied. I also do not think someone should get a reduced sentence if they plead guilty because there is so much evidence. I see no reason to reward someone for leaving a wide trail to follow.

The greatest benefits of putting someone in prison for the rest of their lives is giving them a chance to prove their innocence while being able to use them as a cheap labor force.
Unfortunately, my country considers it to barbaric to even take rights from criminals and so they can get married, access the internet, educate themselves and eat lots of free food with the taxpayers money.

So the only argument against the death penalty is actually an argument against the justice system, claiming it's flawed enough to where we shouldn't kill anyone convicted of something worthy of being sentenced to death?

So change the justice system. The death penalty isn't flawed.

So the argument against the death penalty is that the guy might be innocent? We should keep draining our tax dollars in overcrowded prisons for every single convict in the country just because they -might- be innocent?

Pretty crappy reason. I'd rather kill one innocent guy along with every guilty guy as opposed to not killing any guilty guys at all.

What if you were that innocent guy? What good comes from killing the guilty ones anyway- other than mercenary? Revenge?

Isn't it better to allow them the rest of their lifetime to reflect upon what they've done, and know that they'll suffer in prison for the rest of their lives? I can't imagine anything worse.

So the argument against the death penalty is that the guy might be innocent? We should keep draining our tax dollars in overcrowded prisons for every single convict in the country just because they -might- be innocent?

Pretty crappy reason. I'd rather kill one innocent guy along with every guilty guy as opposed to not killing any guilty guys at all.

Money is pretty shitty reason for your immoral argument advocating the state sponsered murder of innocent people. Its also flawed, the whole execution process is incredibly expensive even compared to the cost of locking them up their entire lives.
123 men and women have been released from death row nationwide there are people who are innocent on death row.

Isn't it better to allow them the rest of their lifetime to reflect upon what they've done, and know that they'll suffer in prison for the rest of their lives? I can't imagine anything worse.

Me neither. That's why I prefer the death penalty. Life without parole is cruel.

Personally, I think we give plenty of appeals. Too many. I think it's a sign of our flawed system that we need so many appeals and so many years on death row to be reasonably assured that innocent men don't die.

I like LG's idea of crushing. Plus I'm sure they could get a good deal on 50 ton weights from Acme.

I like LG's idea of crushing. Plus I'm sure they could get a good deal on 50 ton weights from Acme.

I can think of more interesting ways, but crushing is fun and quick. :)

I can think of more interesting ways, but crushing is fun and quick. :)

saves space too, it will cut the prison grave yard to half the size.

So the argument against the death penalty is that the guy might be innocent? We should keep draining our tax dollars in overcrowded prisons for every single convict in the country just because they -might- be innocent?

Pretty crappy reason. I'd rather kill one innocent guy along with every guilty guy as opposed to not killing any guilty guys at all.

That's a pretty incorrect opinion you've got there. Not only is executing a prisoner FAR more expensive, but the odds of killing several innocent people along with the guilty ones is far too high. As someone said earlier, over one hundred people previously on death row have been released after new evidence proved their innocence. Would you rather kill ten innocent guys along with every guilty guy? Fifty? One hundred? When does the trade off not become worth it to you?

The governor of Illinois pardoned every death row inmate in his state because it came to light that there were severe flaws in the DA's prosecution of so many death row inmates. There were far too many inmates who quite likely could be innocent. Our justice system is far, far from perfect.

No, I'm against the death penalty because it lowers the state to the level of a murderer. Why is an individual be condemned to death for killing, yet the state isn't?

Heh I love it when this one pops it head over the paraphet.

My tupence worth.

If killing is wrong, then it is also wrong to kill somebody for killing somebody.
Prison is a much better punishment, note I say punishment not deterant.

For those of the 'why should my tax money go to keeping people in prison....' ilke

You, me, even the unemployed pay their tax money, the amount of tax money we pay does not increase due to the amount of people in prision. It really is a silly argument. When we vote a party in we do so on their policies for running the country(tactickle voting aside) it is here and then that we should worry about how and where our taxes are being spent, it is here and when we get the most input into it. If you don't want your taaxes going to fund prisions, this is the time and place to raise it.

Although personaly if you really don't want your taxes giong to prisions, what do you want to do with the criminals, just let them all go?

That's a pretty incorrect opinion you've got there. Not only is executing a prisoner FAR more expensive, but the odds of killing several innocent people along with the guilty ones is far too high. As someone said earlier, over one hundred people previously on death row have been released after new evidence proved their innocence. Would you rather kill ten innocent guys along with every guilty guy? Fifty? One hundred? When does the trade off not become worth it to you?

The governor of Illinois pardoned every death row inmate in his state because it came to light that there were severe flaws in the DA's prosecution of so many death row inmates. There were far too many inmates who quite likely could be innocent. Our justice system is far, far from perfect.

point of the post was not that this guy is being executed, but that he gave a very crappy reason why he couldnt be. if he is able to use this excuse for not dying what makes you think he wont use the excuse for any other punishment. "i cant do community service, it hurts".

and know that they'll suffer in prison for the rest of their lives? I can't imagine anything worse.

some would say you have a weak (or many just squared and limited) imagination :D

point of the post was not that this guy is being executed, but that he gave a very crappy reason why he couldnt be. if he is able to use this excuse for not dying what makes you think he wont use the excuse for any other punishment. "i cant do community service, it hurts".

Hehe that may have been your oringinal point, but now weez agona get shoutin':p

So the argument against the death penalty is that the guy might be innocent? We should keep draining our tax dollars in overcrowded prisons for every single convict in the country just because they -might- be innocent?

Pretty crappy reason. I'd rather kill one innocent guy along with every guilty guy as opposed to not killing any guilty guys at all.
Nothing you can say will convince me that if 'one innocent' were your father, mother, brother, sister best friend, child, spouse, or self, you would still feel like this.

As for the notion that denying freedom (permently) is on par with denying all life entirely (out right killing), (as commented by other posters earlier in the thread) kidnapping is a less serious case offense than murder (at law) for a reason. Unlike the death penalty, the notion that 'denying freedom is less offensive than denying life' is effectively uncontested and unopposed.
I dont accept the casual suggestion otherwise, it goes against my feeling, against the feeling of society at large, and comes without a single argument to commend it.

For me the most compelling reason against the death penalty, is that it is below the minimum standards of behaviour that I consider acceptable.

what the hell has the world come to?

we used to execute with a $5 rope, now we have to gently put them to sleep and make sure there isnt any pain involved in the execution?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/bc.na.gen.us.cultleader.ap/index.html

if i ever get in trouble with the law i will make sure i try that excuse. "im sorry officer, i can not do my punishment. i think it will hurt too much"

Why should anyone care whether he would feel pain? He's going to be dead at some stage so it's not as if he will file a complaint about the discomfort level.

some would say you have a weak (or many just squared and limited) imagination :D

Some would guess that you have a sick imagination. :D

If killing is wrong, then it is also wrong to kill somebody for killing somebody.
Prison is a much better punishment, note I say punishment not deterant.

By the same logic...

It is also wrong for someone to hold someone else prisoner, so the state should not hold people prisoner. We should do community service punishments for all crimes instead.

So the argument against the death penalty is that the guy might be innocent? We should keep draining our tax dollars in overcrowded prisons for every single convict in the country just because they -might- be innocent?

Pretty crappy reason. I'd rather kill one innocent guy along with every guilty guy as opposed to not killing any guilty guys at all.

Personally, I'd rather kill no guilty guys, if that means that at least one innocent guy does not die out out error.

The death penalty doesn't lower the state to the level of a murderer anymore than war does (an actual just war). And it should be thought on as hard as one thinks before declaring war. If it is proven the evil will not stop as long as this person is in touch with the rest of humanity, in that they cannot be rehabilitated, then it is the state's duty to the rest of us to keep that person from us forever. I would like to see studies on the cost of life in prison v/s bang you're dead. because a minimum wage is supposed to be enough to support a person. therefore it would cost 10k per year to incarcerate 1 prisoner. if they are kept 30 years, that's 300k. somehow i think keeping them is the more expensive option. Mass housing can only remove so much of the cost. I would much rather the state spend my taxes on something more efficient. so send them packing somewhere they can't come back from. the middle east or the afterlife.

By the same logic...

It is also wrong for someone to hold someone else prisoner, so the state should not hold people prisoner. We should do community service punishments for all crimes instead.

The state has tacitly received the collective majority of society, and society thereby charges it with the responsibility of defending the individuals within the society. Each individual has the right and duty to defend themselves, but, in a society, they can allow for the state to take up that role as well.

Personally, I'd rather kill no guilty guys, if that means that at least one innocent guy does not die out out error.

If a guilty guy gets sentenced to 20 years, is released and kills again does that count as the states responsibility for not executing him?

Or do innocent people killed by convicted killers released after serving their custodial sentence not count?

By the same logic...

It is also wrong for someone to hold someone else prisoner, so the state should not hold people prisoner. We should do community service punishments for all crimes instead.

Forcly imprisonering somebody is what is against the law. All kiling of a human by another human is against the law.(except war) Yeah I know that cases for self defense can be made, but a case for it still has to be made.

If a guilty guy gets sentenced to 20 years, is released and kills again does that count as the states responsibility for not executing him?

Or do innocent people killed by convicted killers released after serving their custodial sentence not count?

In the cases where a guy would get executed, I'd rather like it if the killer was sentenced to multiple life sentences without parole.

I'm just not willing to take the sort of risk we take when we authorize the death penalty.

well america is just screwed up. were so "rights" obbsesed that its taking a drain on our economy. look at the iraq war, its pointless, and their not even americans. we just feel its our duty to give the entire world its rights.

I think if I had to choose my execution, it would be by firing squad.

I'd choose death by obesity.

The state has tacitly received the collective majority of society, and society thereby charges it with the responsibility of defending the individuals within the society. Each individual has the right and duty to defend themselves, but, in a society, they can allow for the state to take up that role as well.

I'm not sure what this has to do with defending the logic gab between:

"It is wrong for a person to do A therefore it is wrong for the state to do A so we punish them with B"

And

"It is wrong for a person to do B, but it is not wrong for the state to do B, so we punish them with B"

Paerticulary when B is a pretty damn serious crime for an individual.

If a guilty guy gets sentenced to 20 years, is released and kills again does that count as the states responsibility for not executing him?

Or do innocent people killed by convicted killers released after serving their custodial sentence not count?


The simple answer to that is don't let killers out of prison, unless in a coffin.

I'd choose death by obesity.

Heheh yeah and die over the course of 20 years

I'd choose death by obesity.

Heh, sneaky. :p

Forcly imprisonering somebody is what is against the law. All kiling of a human by another human is against the law.(except war) Yeah I know that cases for self defense can be made, but a case for it still has to be made.
I believe the *act* that is against the law is holding somebody against their will, which is what jail is.

Execution is to murder what jail is to kidnapping/holding someone prisoner.

Also, if they legalise execution of killers your arguement falls flat on it's face?

The simple answer to that is don't let killers out of prison, unless in a coffin.

What is the real difference between keeping a person in a cage until they die of old age/illness and execution?

One is just a very prolonged version of the other.

What is the real difference between keeping a person in a cage until they die of old age/illness and execution?

One is just a very prolonged version of the other.

They die by the power of the state, by the will of the people.

Heheh yeah and die over the course of 20 years

Yep. And have a comfortable existence doing so as well. :)

I believe the *act* that is against the law is holding somebody against their will, which is what jail is.

Execution is to murder what jail is to kidnapping/holding someone prisoner.

Also, if they legalise execution of killers your arguement falls flat on it's face?


And I belive that it is lawful to imprision somebody for a crime that they have commited. I also belive that the goverment can be done for the unlawful imprisonment.

And I belive that it is lawful to imprision somebody for a crime that they have commited. I also belive that the goverment can be done for the unlawful imprisonment.

By your reasoning here if the government made it lawful for them to execute criminals then it would be ok.

You have gone from arguing what is moral/right to arguing what is legal. There is a big difference between the two.

Why don't you, y'know, eliminate the barbaric practise altogether?

Thats a great idea and will be implemented as soon as people stop the barbaric behavior that earns a death sentence.

What is the real difference between keeping a person in a cage until they die of old age/illness and execution?

One is just a very prolonged version of the other.

Nope it aint, coz in one you kill somebody and in the other they die of old age.

By your reasoning here if the government made it lawful for them to execute criminals then it would be ok.

You have gone from arguing what is moral/right to arguing what is legal. There is a big difference between the two.


Okay okay you got me, I can't see any faliure in your logic.

So lets then stick to the moral argument. What would you say was the biggest of human rights?

So lets then stick to the moral argument. What would you say was the biggest of human rights?

Ok, Life, and while you're alive - Liberty.

But, some might say a person who commits murder does not respect that right so it should in turn not be afforded to them.

Now you can come back with 'but if you say murderers don't have the right to life you don't respect it and so you forefit your right life'

Which is the same as saying "if you say kidnappers don't respect the rights of another persons liberty then you forefit your right to liberty"

I think it's time for a new painless form of capital punishment. What about crushing? I doubt there'd be much time to suffer if somebody dropped a 50 ton weight on top of you. :)
They'd have to inspect criminals for umbrellas.

Ok, Life, and while you're alive - Liberty.

But, some might say a person who commits murder does not respect that right so it should in turn not be afforded to them.

Now you can come back with 'but if you say murderers don't have the right to life you don't respect it and so you forefit your right life'

Which is the same as saying "if you say kidnappers don't respect the rights of another persons liberty then you forefit your right to liberty"

Heheh how easy you read me huh!

You are correct the first and most basic human right is that of life. So strong is this right(and my belife in it) that I would even advocate the right of somebody to choose when to end their own life.

The punishment for not respecting this right shouldbe harsh, in fact in light of the stregnth of the right, it should be the harshest possible. But it cannot be death, becuase this makes a mockery of the very right.

But it cannot be death, becuase this makes a mockery of the very right.

Which again is like saying it is wrong to punish a person who violates a persons right to liberty by throwing them in jail, as it makes a mockery of their right to liberty.

We recognise that if a person kidnaps someone they forefit their right to liberty for a time. Why is it so different to say that if someone kills someone they forefit their own life?

I'm not a mega proponent of the death penalty, and am uncomfortable with it's use in many cases - as it is obviously irreversible. But in cases where the proof is overwealming I think it should be an option.

Which again is like saying it is wrong to punish a person who violates a persons right to liberty by throwing them in jail, as it makes a mockery of their right to liberty.

We recognise that if a person kidnaps someone they forefit their right to liberty for a time. Why is it so different to say that if someone kills someone they forefit their own life?

I'm not a mega proponent of the death penalty, and am uncomfortable with it's use in many cases - as it is obviously irreversible. But in cases where the proof is overwealming I think it should be an option.


No it's not at all, it is about the degree of strenght of the right. The right to life is so fundemental that any attack on this right should be strongly fought.

what the hell has the world come to?

we used to execute with a $5 rope, now we have to gently put them to sleep and make sure there isnt any pain involved in the execution?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/bc.na.gen.us.cultleader.ap/index.html

if i ever get in trouble with the law i will make sure i try that excuse. "im sorry officer, i can not do my punishment. i think it will hurt too much"

I believe that Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit on capital punishment. They explained that while lethal injection is a quiet method of killing someone, there isn't necessarily anything painless about it. The anesthesia only knocks you out for a few seconds. Then they inject you with the paralyzing agent that they use to keep sudden movements from disrupting surgery. The kind where you can't even move your eyelid muscles. Then they inject you with something that gives you a heart attack.

It's clean and quiet, so people don't feel bad about doing it, but the same can be said of suffocating someone with a velvet pillow.

What happened to the good ol' days where you just shoot someone in the head? Painless, problem solved.

I think that murderers should be killed the way the killed someone. For example, if someone shoots someone in the head, they get shot in the back. Of someome thorws somebody in frotn of a train, that happens to them. Its stupid if someone hacks another man to thousands of bits and the murderer gets a fast, painless death.

Personally, I'd rather kill no guilty guys, if that means that at least one innocent guy does not die out out error.

Yeah but then the guilty ones are eventually let out and how many people die because of that?

What happened to the good ol' days where you just shoot someone in the head? Painless, problem solved.

I think things settled down a bit after we pulled out of Vietnam and they had a unified government.

Now he's just making excuses for himself... *tsk, tsk* :)

It is quite ridiculous how these convicted felons of horrendous crimes have the nerve to whine about their Death Penalty. Did not most of their victims feel pain. Why are people defending these monsters.

Call me cold hearted if you like but I have absolutely no sympathy for these mosters. I wish them all the pain in the world. Bastards.......

well he started it by killing people, boil the fucker in oil for all i care, he doesn't deserve to continue breathing

Yes, he does. She deserves to live for as long as possible, to punish her as much as possible. She should be prohibited from dying with dignity. She should be kept on life support and alive for as long as possible until she is too brain damaged to comphrehend what she did.

One of my main issues with the death penalty is that it's not purely a punishment. It's about revenge. You have hurt us, so we will hurt you. YOu took from us, so we will take from you.

What does that make us? Does our desire to kill the criminal not put us on similar terms with the criminal who killed another man? You can argue justification and semantic for years, but it comes down to the fact that you are killing someone because you don't like them. Yes, there are laws and emotive issues to try and justify your desire, but you are still baying for the death. That is not a good culture to encourage, or to live in.

Thank goodness the UK no longer has the death penalty in any form.

Death penalty is alot less barbaric than getting raped and stabbed by a hairy roommate. Plus, it lowers overcrowding. Plus, why deny someone one of the quickest and least painful methods of death when said person could burn to death in a car accident or be raped and killed by a hairy prisoner.

When will people learn that there are far worse fates than death, like immortality. Sure, it's great at first. But once everyone else dies or you fall into a volcano, your endless life takes a sharp turn towards suck. The damn monkey would be castrated. If you don't get it, think of the expression "sucking monkey balls". Yeah.

Which again is like saying it is wrong to punish a person who violates a persons right to liberty by throwing them in jail, as it makes a mockery of their right to liberty.

I think the problem here is that you're too distracted by the concept of retribution, when you should be focussing on rehabilitation.

When you execute someone, nobody wins. When you jail someone, they get help. Psychologists work with them to help them improve their lives. Big difference.

Why don't you, y'know, eliminate the barbaric practise altogether?

Bisson's with you (& so am I):
www.terrybisson.com/macs.html

personally i'd like to flay him alive - breathing is too good for him

George Carlin:
"That's not cruel and unusual. You want cruel and unusual? You dip a guy in brown gravy and lock him in a small room with a wolverine who's high on angel dust. There's one guy who's not going to be fucking with too many kids at the bus stop for a while..."

What exactly is wrong with revenge forming an aspect of a punishment?

Revenge is a perfectly reasonable human emotion/desire.

Personally, I think that if we're going to have executions, they should be public.


And none of this "letal injection" or "gas chamber" crap. One person kneeling, one person standing up with an axe, and a crowd watching. Secluded executions does for killing people what butcher shops do for eating meat. Makes people think its all harmless, quiet, and good for you. Well it's nasty, messy, and dark. And if people are going to demand that the state take away human lives, they should have to see what they're voting for, and not be allowed to pretend it's something it isn't.

And the executive in charge should have to do it himself. I think even Dubya would have been reluctant to order a hundred and fifty two executions if he had to stand before the people and chop that head off himself. And more people would see him for the man he really is.

What exactly is wrong with revenge forming an aspect of a punishment?

Revenge is a perfectly reasonable human emotion/desire.

No it isn't. It is, by definition, not reasonable. It is an emotional desire. Reason means that you'd make the same decision without the emotional baggage.

In practical terms, the problem with revenge forming the basis for the governments model of punishment is that it creates a motivation to punish the innocent when no viable suspect is available, or even when police know someone that they don't like. Like with the West Memphis Three. John Grisham also recently wrote a non-fiction book about a 23 year old murder case where the police only investigated, then tried and convicted, the village idiot because instead of being a lovable goof, he was an obnoxious bi-polar patient they found annoying.

I think the problem here is that you're too distracted by the concept of retribution, when you should be focussing on rehabilitation.

When you execute someone, nobody wins. When you jail someone, they get help. Psychologists work with them to help them improve their lives. Big difference.

Your ideal is a good one, but jail doesn't do that. Jail is essentially vocational training for criminals.

But the problem is that people think of prison as nothing but societies revenge, and so when the conservative side is on the rise you get people thinking "why should my tax money pay to educate a convict when I have to pay thousands of dollars to send my kid to college."

You end up with a prison that does nothing but turn petty criminals into hardened criminals.

The death penalty doesn't lower the state to the level of a murderer anymore than war does (an actual just war). And it should be thought on as hard as one thinks before declaring war. If it is proven the evil will not stop as long as this person is in touch with the rest of humanity, in that they cannot be rehabilitated, then it is the state's duty to the rest of us to keep that person from us forever. I would like to see studies on the cost of life in prison v/s bang you're dead. because a minimum wage is supposed to be enough to support a person. therefore it would cost 10k per year to incarcerate 1 prisoner. if they are kept 30 years, that's 300k. somehow i think keeping them is the more expensive option. Mass housing can only remove so much of the cost. I would much rather the state spend my taxes on something more efficient. so send them packing somewhere they can't come back from. the middle east or the afterlife.

You fail to include the price the courts take for prisoners on death row. A death row inmate has increased rights to an appeal (I see that as a neccesity to prove you really are killing a guilty person) and the seperate costs of keeping an inmate isolated on death row. The costs of the trail, appeals, and most likely a govt. paid legal representation for all of that, raises the price of killing someone over the price of keeping someone in jail for the rest of thier life.

If a guilty guy gets sentenced to 20 years, is released and kills again does that count as the states responsibility for not executing him?

Or do innocent people killed by convicted killers released after serving their custodial sentence not count?

I doubt anyone is advocating that we ever release these people, but keeping them in jail until they die. Why would anyone want a murderer to go free?

Which again is like saying it is wrong to punish a person who violates a persons right to liberty by throwing them in jail, as it makes a mockery of their right to liberty.

We recognise that if a person kidnaps someone they forefit their right to liberty for a time. Why is it so different to say that if someone kills someone they forefit their own life?

I'm not a mega proponent of the death penalty, and am uncomfortable with it's use in many cases - as it is obviously irreversible. But in cases where the proof is overwealming I think it should be an option.

Using that defense of only executing people where the proof is "Overwhelming" is flawed by its very reasoning. In the US, (the only major western nation that still has the death penalty) a person is not supposed to be found guilty if there is ANY reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence of guilt should be overwhelming in EVERY guilty sentence