Eliza - it is not your opinion, it is your argument. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine! But your argument is bad.

Musket. Well, I could just tell you to piss off too, couldn't I? Since I'm English, where exactly do you expect me to piss off to? This is my country too. On the other hand, maybe you'll read M's post & be a bit less careless in your reading in future. Murder is never justified. I don't regard state-sanctioned execution as murder, if the system is properly designed. Which I already more-or-less said. So you can... ;-)

As to the question of deterrence, I maintain my previous stance. It IS *ALWAYS* lugged into any argument about crime & punishment. It doesn't matter whether the debate is about murder or shoplifting. Someone will ALWAYS bring it up. It is an entirely false qunatity. The question for the justice system and for the court and for the judge & jury is not "How do we stop people arriving here". That is a question for society and for government. The question is "What do we do with the ones that end up here?" That is a matter of punishment, gentle or otherwise. Deterrence is an irrelevance. Being gratuitously flippant, the re-offending rate after CP IS zero... ;-)

Jack - Yes, I would be willing. I wouldn't regard it as stooping. I would regard it as unpleasant and necessary. And, I had this argument with my dear old (dead) dad a long time back, if I were wrongly on the wrong end of a death penalty, I would go to the gallows / chair / whatever crying my innocence. But I still wouldn't argue that CP was wrong.