Well, as you may know, some US states have the death penalty and others don't. I remember seeing somewhere statistics that murder/crime rates are lower in states with the death penalty, but I've no idea where -- and I'll grant you that thugs are likely not thinking too much about their long term prospects. There are other murderers, though, who may well decide not to risk it in a state that might end up killing them.
And I'll tell you one thing for certain -- a criminal who's been executed will no longer have *any* chance of doing further harm. Whereas "life sentences" can get bargained down and worked around. Didn't a lot of IRA terrorists get amnestied, after a while, as part of a political deal? It's hard to do that with dead people.
I do believe the state, within the constraints of the justice system, has the moral right to execute criminals, as an exercise in justice and in defence of the state's residents.
Appeals for clemency should be part of the system, though. Is the system perfect? Nope, nothing is. I'm in favor of clear laws universally followed -- but with someone to respond to extraordinary cases. (And to my mind, they would have to be very extraordinary circumstances, not just, 'hey, my client has decided he doesn't want to die.')
I feel that the death penalty doesn't solve anything.
I've heard that phrase before, and it's always kinda puzzled me. What would you expect it to solve? It won't magically avert all crimes, no. In individual cases, though, it provides justice, for murderers especially. A murder victim isn't able to sue for clemency. Our courts need to be as absolutely fair as they can manage, but when there's a conflict between the rights of the victim and the rights of the guilty, I've got to side with the victims and their families.
PJ
