Supposedly it's cheaper to keep prisoners alive than to kill them, but I do believe in the death penalty for extreme cases where the inmate is dangerous not only to society, but is a very real and constant threat to the guards and such who take care of them, the sort of person who will never be rehabilitated and who will probably just keep senselessly killing and killing. It's like putting down a sick animal who one can't keep from attacking the throats of small children.
This is pretty accurate for me, too. Also, only in cases where the guilt of the person is beyond reasonable or even most unreasonable doubts, as I don't consider the minor happiness someone may feel from death is worth even one innocent person accidentally getting the shot.
I guess my official position is that I strongly oppose the death penalty, and generally think it's no good, but at the same time I'm not going to get upset in cases like, say, Loughner, Timothy McVeigh or Ted Bundy.
Because of the American intervention in our affairs, we do not have the death penalty in Europe any more.
American Constitution is based on the British and French ideas of civil liberties.
While Europe stagnated, America moved ahead.
America intervened in European affairs four times, for the benefit of our nations.
It is easy to love your neighbour. It is hard to love yourself.
Being killed for having killed, for having violated the moral code of the non-existent entity 'state'. I think any penatly inflicted upon any person by any state poses a moral paradox. However, if for practical purposes a state chooses to commit such acts, there is little difference between keeping a person in prison for a lifetime and killing them.