My reasons to oppose the death penalty are a little different. I think that killing people, even if it is the worst person on earth, a Tsarnaev or a Manson (who after all is still alive) is wrong. Because in my opinion, any time a society kills somebody it diminishes that society. Killing somebody harms the killer (Unless they are somebody who has already fallen so low they are beyond being harmed.) I'm not a pacifist. I think there are times when self-defense leaves killing the least worst choice. But even those times hurt the person who does it. I mean of course we get tremendous PSTD from unjust wars like - well quite honestly almost every war the USA has been in since WWII. But quite a few soldiers came back from WWII broken. "Just War" may make the price paid necessary. But it does not diminish that price. There is some evidence that killing another human is an inherently traumatic experience - maybe baked into our biology. (I am always very suspicious of evolutionary psychology - even when it reinforces my prejudices; too many just-so stories. But there is as good evidence for this as for components of any other aspect of human behavior.)

Thus, killing should be limited to the cases where basically society has no other way to keep the person from doing harm - to immediate threats. Once someone is imprisoned, they are no longer a threat. There are no real life Hannibal Lectors or supervillains - killers who no prison can hold. Locking up the bad guys keeps us safe enough. The satisfaction of revenge and the small chance that they might escape is not worth the harm to us of killing them. My opposition to the death penalty is selfish; I think it makes the world a worse place to live in.

And it is no accident that it is usually unjust in practice. Having a death penalty is part of what makes us a more callous society, ready to act on our prejudices and worst instincts. I'm not claiming it is the main cause; but it is a damn good reinforcing factor in something that has a multitude of causes.

I'm with Typo Boy in my reasoning. And I'm disappointed that a jury from my state would reach this decision.

I object to the death penalty because too often convictions are racist and/or classist, and too often we convict the wrong person. Also because I believe in the possibility of redemption, as long as they can't go on hurting people while we're waiting for their spiritual epiphany. But there are people I really want out of society, off the planet, and preferably out of the gene pool, and it's hard in certain horrible cases not to think, "Yeah... just shoot 'em."

Yeah. In general I oppose the death penalty for its lack of effectiveness as a deterrent and the chance of it being applied wrongfully (the brother of a former co-worker was framed for murder and spent like 14 years in prison before his conviction was overturned—with evidence the warden knew about and was sitting on). I'm also willing to admit some possibility of redemption for people who actually commit a murder. But for ones who kill masses of innocent people they don't even know, like Tsarnaev, or proven serial killers where there's no room for doubt, exterminating them removes the risk of them ever killing a prison staffer or another felon who's not a remorseless husk of a human being.

Because in my opinion, any time a society kills somebody it diminishes that society.

Yeah, that's the main basis for my opinion, as well.

Before I even approach addressing whether killing is even philosophically in accordance with justice, I find killing as a part of the institution of the system of justice problematic. It's based on the premise (to a degree) of revocability. It's a system, not true justice in the philosophical or arguably moral sense. And dead is pretty irrevocable. True justice allows no moral standing to the defense, and that's just unworkable when dealing with human wobbliness.

ION, need to remember to buy a new box fan tomorrow. Latest fall from window chipped a blade. Still works, but probably will get worse. I need to find one I can hook into an anchor or something.

And take a canning jar lid with me. My neighbor wants a solar light he can read by and loves the jar lights. So I'm gonna look for bright solar lights. He's the opposite of handy, so I'm happy to find guru something out.

Calli, that is great to hear!

I have all of the reasons to be against the death penalty: morally wrong on its face, morally wrong in its implementation, more expensive and ongoing than life without parole.

Some people have forfeited their right to be on the planet. My candidates probably differ from others'. I haven't followed this trial well enough to determine if Tsaernev falls in that category. I have no objection to removing people permanently from society, but the methods used so far to determine who should be killed are possibly irredeemably flawed.

Speaking of the justice system, a friend of mine is now a federal defender and ran into a bit of a pickle. See, she and her partner are trying to adopt and when you google her, one of the first three results is for a SC case. Ok, fine, she's made the big leagues, right? Well, it's tied to a pedophilia case. Urk.

I'm reminded of this because it was her reasoning on career choice (she was first a public defender in Philly) that really clarified my thinking on the justice system. Her job isn't justice. It's making the system work. As it should be for all working in it. Hopefully, we can approximate moral justice, but it ain't perfect.

For me, opposition to the death penalty is based on the fact that I don't want the state killing in my/the public's name, because the state is made up of people, and people fuck things up.