is wisconsin such a blood thirsty state, that they won't be complete without the death penalty? i doubt that.

Killing people is wrong.

If we are looking at setting a moral example, surely the best idea is to find ways that would lead to prospective murderers aspiring to our standard, not bringing ourselves down to theirs.

"Killing people is a bloody stupid way to demonstrate that you don't approve of killing people."

even if that's true, and this is just hypothetical, because we know it isn't, the death penalty won't solve the problem. what it does is make all of us complicit in murder, with the state acting as our agent.

Actually one of the purposes of capital punishment was to provide revenge for the victim's family and friends rather than leave it to blood feuds that go on for generations.

As for deterrence I've seen the arguments about it, but most leave out these crucial details.

Given that we are talking about cold blooded murder as a candidate for execution...  robbery, gang fights, revenge..etc... the deterrence factor works only on people of some intelligence.

With the exception of the psychos, I posit that most cold blooded murders are done by people who are of low intelliegence or uneducated or both.

The longer time frame between the act, the trial and the punishment, the less effective it as deterence because the act and the consquences become separated in the public's mind.

Private executions further reduce the deterence effect caused by the time factor I mentioned above. No one knows much, if anything, about the horrors viisted on the victim(s) by the killer, nor do they know how horrible an execution is.

Since it has become unreal, then "it won't happen to me," especually for the lower intelligent and uneducated... psychos again excepted....becomes a valid belief in their minds.

So those who are currently being deterred will continue to be, and there is no way to measure their numbers.

The numbers not deterred will depend on the factors I mentioned above, plus the general aceptance in society of violence, poverty level and expectations of fufilled desires.

So, if we want to improve deterrence, we should:

1. Make all excutions public. Let the public see the terrible results of the actions of the criminal and the actions of the state, and the terrible results.

2. Fast track all trials and appeals process in any capital case. Note I didn't say take short cuts, just provide the resources to make the process as rapid as possible.
   

The point is that if you want a death penalty it should serve some useful purpose.

A. State revenge to eliminate blood feuds.

B. Deterrence

The only real way you can deter someone is to convince them of what will happen, and what it actually means.

Quicker trials/appeals does that. Public executions graphically does that.

Besides. If you can't stand the view, don't demand that the state does it under cover.

Of course that's looking at the problem from the victim's view.

Absent that the state has little to offer.

HK - Your inability to recognize the difference between a murder and an execution by the state means that you see no difference between justice and injustice.

You write:

What, then, does capital punishment offer those who want no revenge and would not seek it for themselves?

Nothing. The state provided revenge is not meant to be an "individual" thing, but as a societal thing.

As to the two people you reference, I would ask them this.

Since you demand the right to prevent them from being executed, do you give victim families of other murders the right to force an execution?

As for the so-called brutalism effect, I put that into the category of psychobabble. I have seen no studies that make any sense. Certainly your link falls into that category.

And I didn't say spend less. What I said was:

Fast track all trials and appeals process in any capital case. Note I didn't say take short cuts, just provide the resources to make the process as rapid as possible.

If that takes more, so be it.

Kill them all and let God sort them out?

So instead of talking about it, thinking about some new ideas, you hunker down and defend the status quo. And when I point out that's a conservative approach, you get your jockies in a wad.

Go back and read. I never said I was for capital punishment. I said:

Speed the process up.

If you're going to execute, do it in public.

HK - Your inability to recognize the difference between a murder and an execution by the state means that you see no difference between justice and injustice.

The state sees no difference in murder and execution.  In both cases, the death certificate has as cause of death 'homicide'.

The very fact that for you the state is synonomous with justice means that you are not looking at this subject objectively.

I hope Edger, cpinva and Che laughed as hard as I did when I read this:

I love you guys. Honest, if you didn't exist I'd have to invent you.

Jim actually does think he is God!!!

BTW - the dictionary says that homicide is:

a killing of one human being by another

The death certificate is correct. However, it does not address why. And that is the key. In one case it is sanctioned by the state, in another it is illegal.

I again note none of you offer anything but a conservative view that you are right and that there is no need to actually look at the problems and try to solve them.

After all, everyone knows that national health care would make things worse, gay marriage actually provides legal protection for gay spouses and we can't have that...jailing drug users gets sucm off the street...the tax system is fair...

You do support the above, right? I mean no need to discuss any solutions, eh??

From the so-called "Social liberal" on the "Inmate Kills Self To Avoid Texecution" comments section.

The stench of arrogant hypocrisy and presumptive judicial power emanates once again from the "Social Liberal".

I repeat. I see no difference between the Left and the Right, as I was demonstrating in my last post, when it comes to issues.

Both sides have positioned themselves on their corner and are busy shouting at the other.

fast-tracking cases won't resolve that problem. perhaps, were the state so inclined to provide sufficient resources, the incidence of innocent people being sentenced to death might decline. i submit that it will never be zero, because human beings, by definition, are fallible.

1. Religious reasons "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."
   
2. Saves the taxpayer money; prisoners serving life sentences cost the state a fortune.
   
3. A deterrent.
   
4. Reduces the number of criminals. To reduce crimes.
   
5. Due to forensics miscarriages of justice are theoretically less likely.
   
6. It's a solution to our overcrowded prisons.