Gnu:

Each case on it's own merits. Fair. Let's say, for the sake of arguement that he actually did do all the crimes he is accused of doing. Do you still want to keep him around?

If you're asking my opinion, I say yes. Killing someone (particularly intentionally) is barbaric, and robs you of your humanity, bit by bit, life by life, as you take the lives of others.

Yes, "Tookie" Williams was a gang leader, a very violent person, and a danger to us all (but just a FWIW, more so to himself that he ever was to you or me, at least statistically). I certainly don't laud that behaviour. I just don't see that we set any kind of an exmaple by showing the gangs that we too live by the motto "an eye for an eye".....

Roger in Baltimore:

I believe in the death penalty as a way to prevent evil from continuing. I believe in the death penalty as a deterrent.

Would you feel differently if it were shown that the death penalty is not a "way to prevent evil from continuing"?

The areas where there is effectively no death penalty are the same areas with the highest murder rate.

"Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. While superficially appealing, that's not really any proof of the causal link.

(the last) GUEST: What you say rings true to me.

Cheers,