Death Penalty poll

Do you support the death penalty, or should it be abolished world wide?

You demostrate to society that killing is wrong by killing those guilty of killing. Decriminalize drugs so there's plenty of room in the jails for the murderers, then abolish the death penalty. In my opinion, putting someone to death is the ultimate "cruel and unusual punishment."

What makes no sense to me is the evangementalist Christians who are so gung-ho for the death penalty. I keep forgetting, how did Jesus die again?

"Decriminalize drugs so there's plenty of room in the jails for the murderers, then abolish the death penalty."

That's a bit dishonest isn't it?

There's always room to lock up a murderer... no US judge has ever told a convicted criminal that they couldn't lock them up because the gaol was full, have they?

The death penalty has nothing to do with prison overcrowding and everything to do with revenge.

But it's one of the arguments used by pro-death penalty people all the time. In reality, it costs more money to keep a prisoner on death row for a year than it does to send a kid to Harvard.

As a person whose best friend was murdered, I can vouch that when victims say they want "closure" they really mean "revenge." But in the end, it doesn't bring your loved one back.

Not only is it possible, it's likely already happened at least once.

...life in prison is sufficient to satisfy two of society's primary interests regarding those guilty of murder:
1. It removes them from the population, assuring that they cannot committ such a horrific crime again.
2. It serves a "retributive" or "punishment" purpose that society demands because it completely restricts the guilty party's freedom till the end of his/her life.
2a. Along those same lines, it also allows for wrongful convictions not to turn into irreversible errors - kinda lame to go out to a wrongfully executed person's grave and say "oops, made a mistake, sorry about that."
IMHO, we should abolish the death penalty.

Not enough choices.
Try this poll.
Doe you support the monarchy or should it be apolished world wide?

"Doe you support the monarchy or should it be apolished world wide?"

Frankly my deer, I think the Queen should be buffed up to a nice sheen globally..

Nothing less than absolute certainty of a person's guilt would satisfy me that he should be executed, and that level of proof is IMO impossible to achieve.

Life imprisonment serves the same purpose for society.

If one is an imminent threat to others, then killing in self-defense or defense of others is justified. If one is killed while not an imminent threat, it is murder.

Why should the state be allowed to commit murder?

America is way behind Europe in civil morality.

...this topic has nothing to do with guns, gun ownership, or gun owners - NOTHING. Yet you still find a way to grind that axe, regardless. It's GUNS BAD - GUN OWNER'S WORSE constantly, no matter the topic at hand. Hilarious...just too, too rich for my ticklish ribs.
Do you EVER think about anything other than how hard you can strain at carrying those slop buckets for the gun control crowd? I'm genuinely curious...

Maybe it would have been better to avoid all talk of guns in this discussion (and that's one reason that I'd like J&PS broken down into separate forums/fora).

However, the point stands - there are some people in J&PS who have publicly stated that anyone who stole so much as a box of breakfast cereal from them would "forfeit their right to life", insomuch as lethal force would be an appropriate response to defend the box of cereal from theft.

It's therefore relevant to the discussion IMHO, as it illustrates that some contributors consider human life to be virtually worthless and are therefore more likely to endorse the Death Penalty without much thought.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In context, they said something like, "I don't care if they only broke into my house to steal a box cereal...if they are in there, I'm going to shoot them."

So it's easy, in hindsight, to say things like, "gun nuts want to kill people for being hungry" or whatever.

Natasha1 said, "A criminal who would steal from me is worthless, in my opinion...If someone breaks into my home, and I get the drop on them, they're dead. Simple as that. I don't care if they are making off with a box of Fruit Loops."

This was NOT about self-defense, this was about killing someone who was LEAVING the scene with a box of breakfast cereal.

Natasha1 also stated unequivocally that his/her car was worth more than the human life of someone stealing it.

I accept that Natasha1 isn't exactly a benchmark for sane debate on here, but I was just highlighting that SOME people on here put a very low value on the life of criminals, and that therefore a debate on the death penalty should take that into account.

In my opinion, the use of lethal force is not dictated by the monetary value of the criminal's life but by the amount of danger the criminal puts me or my family in. That is what the law states, and Natasha would do well to review it.

I didn't mean to imply that there were MANY pro-gunners on here who held such frightening views, but was merely trying to add an extra dimension to the discussion, namely that contributors' views on the sanctity (or otherwise) of human life in one area would inform their views on the death penalty.

Apologies if I've offended the larger crowd - I didn't mean to tar you all with that particularly unpleasant brush.

P.

1 - I'm in here a lot, have been for literally years. Ask anyone.

2 - I never said that people on here had advocated execution as punishment for stealing a box of breakfast cereal. Perhaps if you'd read what I wrote you wouldn't have jumped in with such a rabid and offensive response. Here's what I was talking about - dare accepted:

"I do not hold the belief that all human life is sacred. Some lives are sacred, some are of no consequence, and others are vile. It all depends on how that person carries themselves through life...

A criminal who would steal from me is worthless, in my opinion...If someone breaks into my home, and I get the drop on them, they're dead. Simple as that. I don't care if they are making off with a box of Fruit Loops."

And:

"You can't possibly believe your car is more valuable than the life of a human being, can you?

I certainly believe that."

Both from the compassionate Natasha1.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=48352

3 - Yes, I support gun control. Judging from your maniacal reaction to those words, I can only presume that you're against any sort of "control" over guns - why not just dish them out to everybody in the world and then we'll all be safe? I don't want them banned in the US (the behaviour of the US is its own business), I have no problem with hunting and enjoy shooting when the opportunity arises. I'm sorry that you're actually unable to make a coherent, polite contribution to a debate, but can only offer abusive rants about somebody you don't know. I happen to be very much against poor argument, and although I often find myself arguing on the "anti" gun side, this is usually only when attacking the appalling logic / evidence offered by the "pro"s. If you give a shit, I'm happy to attack the utter crap that has been talked in favour of the Assault Weapons ban, but you wouldn't listen anyway.

4 - It's not my "grand plans", you patronising little man (irony intended). Several other regular contributors (with more than 100 posts each) have each suggested that J&PS was getting bogged down with gun talk over the years. Hey, I even posted a discussion point on here and was widely supported - before your time maybe - in my suggestion that we split guns into a separate section. The idea was that too many DUers felt too intimidated to talk about Justice and Public Safety in here, because they got bogged down in Gungeonite squabbling. I can't imagine why they felt that..........

5 - Your need to rant at anybody making a polite, intelligent observation based on fact and personal opinion is alarming. Why do you feel that this is your personal arena for spouting your pro-gun agenda and that any dissension should be shouted down? I consider myself a visitor who contributes to debates, whereas you seem to have a powerful anger towards anybody who disagrees with you, and an inability to debate.

Perhaps once you've made a couple of worthwhile contributions to this forum then I'll take you seriously.....I might start if you can keep yourself calm enough to reply without patronising me and telling me to leave.

Our new friend has been here since May 28 ... and yet he knows billbuckhead so well ... and yet he knows you and what you're talking about so not well ... and yet he has so much to say about it.

As for what our other friend said -- In context, they said something like, "gun nuts want to kill people for being hungry" -- I've just never heard anyone say anything remotely "like" that at all. I don't believe that the question of *why* someone would steal a box of Froot Loops ever arose.

As for what you said, allow me to say "ditto" to every word of it.

I'm sure neither of us expects that this will forestall continuing allegations that we are both "gun-grabbers" and know-nothings and interfering busybodies, of course.

...I wonder if I popped up in here posting blistering attacks against gun owners you would complain that I've only been around since May 28? Somehow, methinks not.

I wonder if I popped up in here posting blistering attacks against gun owners you would complain that I've only been around since May 28? Somehow, methinks not.

You'd probably be right. I probably wouldn't. I'd probably be posting something like



... since, y'know, that's actually what I have done the last couple of times what you describe happened. Miss 'em, did you?

Anyhow, shooorly you're not saying that I was complaining that you've only been around since May 28. Given that I wasn't, eh?

It was pretty short, and I thought that it was pretty obvious that what I was less than impressed with was your decision to, essentially, call a long-time poster who was reporting actual facts a ... well, a person who is full of crap. Given that the facts were quite well known to anyone who had been ... or admitted being ... around for a while, I'd have thought that this was just a really foolish decision.

...so, you're saying the next time someone with a low post total shows up and launches into a tirade of some sort against a long time pro gun poster here, you'll chastise them with the sheeple pic?

...so, you're saying the next time someone with a low post total shows up and launches into a tirade of some sort against a long time pro gun poster here, you'll chastise them with the sheeple pic?

Am I saying that? You do seem to be the expert on what other people do, say, think ... well, not the only expert. There are actually quite a few around here.

What I SAID was that you were probably right, that if you had "popped up in here posting blistering attacks against gun owners" I would probably not have been complaining that you had only been posting since May 28. (And not just because, as I have pointed out, I wasn't complaining that you have only been posting since May 28.)

What I was attempting, I don't know how successfully, to say was that the only people in recent memory who popped in here posting blistering attacks against gun owners were trolls, and specifically right-wing, anti-firearms control trolls.

I wasn't chastising them for their blistering attacks when I posted the wolf in sheep's clothing pic (gosh, I'd thought that the subject of the pic was clear, but perhaps not). I was chastising them for being right-wing anti-firearms control trolls attempting to pass themselves off as really stupid, extremist firearms control advocates.

If I thought someone actually were a really stupid, extremist firearms control advocate acting in good faith, I'd probably mildly explain whatever it was that was stupid about what they were saying.

Just like I do with a really stupid, extremist firearms control opponent acting in good faith ... the odd time I've encountered one ... which I'm sure I must have at some point ...

my response was still there.

Plus it makes it easier for him to avoid the fact that I comprehensively trounced all the ridiculous rubbish he talked.

Not happy....but then if you break the rules, I suppose you have to have your posts deleted eh?

For the record, I didn't alert.

..."avoiding" anything, but I have this thing that occupies my days called a job.
You said: "but then if you break the rules, I suppose you have to have your posts deleted eh?"
That's right - and that's why we have mods. I don't question their judgement, even when it comes to one of my own posts. My point, which in retrospect could have been expressed in a more becoming manner, was that this thread was specifically about the death penalty - not guns. Opinions where expressed about the topic at hand till a member of the gun control crowd felt it necessary to inject guns into it. BTW, I've read it through three times, and I've yet to see where you "comprehensively trounced" all that "ridiculous rubbish" I was talking about. I'll keep looking...

took up your "dare" and gave an example that you said didn't exist?

Or where I pointed out that I hadn't said what you claimed I'd said?

Or where I suggested that someone's views on the sanctity of human life in relation to defending property (not self) might have an impact on their view on the death penalty?

In fact, if you check my original post you'll notice that what I actually said was, "Maybe it would have been better to avoid all talk of guns in this discussion...However, the point stands - there are some people in J&PS who have publicly stated that anyone who stole so much as a box of breakfast cereal from them would "forfeit their right to life", insomuch as lethal force would be an appropriate response to defend the box of cereal from theft."

Wow - check it out! My only mention of "guns" was to suggest that we shouldn't talk about them in this discussion! And yet you STILL felt so rabidly angry about my post that you had to jump in and abuse me....for something I'd never said.

I don't give a rat's ass about THE METHOD used to take someone's life in that circumstance - I'm fairly convinced that Natasha1 would find some other way of killing a cereal thief if (God forbid) someone took his/her guns away. My point was entirely that some people on here put a very low valuation on a criminal's life.

I can see how it would be easy to miss those...if you really, really wanted to.

...to miss because it had nothing to do with the subject under consideration. Let us review: Party A posts a poll soliciting opinions on the utility of the Death Penalty as an instrument of societal justice. Party B (in this case, me) posts his opinion disapproving of that penalty. Party C starts babbling about guns. Party B (again, me) points out that the question under consideration has nothing to do with guns in this context. What, pray tell, did I miss?

How about:

Party A says something about guns.

Party B (you) rants about this having nothing to do with guns.

Party C (me) says "You're right, it's nothing to do with guns. Let's not talk about guns. However, Party A's point is partially valid because it highlights that some people put a very low valuation on human life as evidenced by this."

Party B (you) says, "You're full of crap Party C. Nobody ever said that. I dare you to show me where. You don't come in here very much do you? Stop imposing your grand plans on us" and collapses in an apoplectic fit of gun-worshipping outrage.

Party C (me again) says, "OK, here's where it was said (quote provided). I'm not talking about guns and never was (in this instance). I've been here for years, unlike your good self. My 'grand plans' were actually a suggestion that was discussed by the regular, established contributors to J&PS as a way of AVOIDING getting bogged down in gun arguments when they're totally irrelevant (like now). It received reasonably widespread support."

Party B (you) ignores the "dare" he threw down, the comprehensive rebuttal of ALL his points, and carries on blathering about how Party C is still talking about guns, which I'm not and never have been in this thread.

You can't keep shouting "Stop talking about guns" and expect to win a debate, especially when I'm not (and never have been in this thread) talking about guns.

Fuck this. I'm off to a party with D and E, who can at least follow a logical discussion.

Peace.

P.

You wrote: (...) the point stands - there are some people in J&PS who have publicly stated that anyone who stole so much as a box of breakfast cereal from them would "forfeit their right to life", insomuch as lethal force would be an appropriate response to defend the box of cereal from theft.

It's therefore relevant to the discussion IMHO, as it illustrates that some contributors consider human life to be virtually worthless and are therefore more likely to endorse the Death Penalty without much thought.


Let me ask you something, please. If the infamous Froot Loop thread is relevant -- despite all those pro-gunners who disagreed with the views you've cited -- then is the following similarly relevant?


Anyway, I would be very happy to see all the automatic and semiautomatic guns replaced with single-shot pistols. Especially the kind that tend to blow up in the shooter's face.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=61448&mesg_id=62186&page=

and later:

If gun-toting criminals had no reasonable expectation that their guns would not jam or explode instead of firing, that would make me happy. You guys talk a lot about motive. Does it not register what that would probably do to the motive to carry and use a gun?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=61448&mesg_id=62245&page=


Incredible -- just incredible. The author of these posts actually comes right out and says that he wants "all" full and semi-auto firearms replaced with defective guns that can blow apart and hurt the user; doing this, he insists, will make criminals less likely to carry guns, because guns in general will be more dangerous to anyone who carries one.


So, my question for you is this: Are the posts that I've cited here any less relevant on the same grounds and to the same extent as the Froot Loop posts?

The other thing I wonder is why none of the poster's fellow gun-control advocates wrote anything critical of what he'd said -- but I won't ask you to hazard a guess on that.


Mary

For a short answer:

I don't have time to delve through that whole discussion and see what context the remarks were made in.

If those remarks genuinely do advocate random exploding weapons then I find them odd and alarming and I don't agree with them. They do indeed suggest a lack of respect for human life.

So basically, I'd go along with your comments but don't have time to check it out....

Regarding your final point - if "anti" gunners did actually spend their time criticising the politeness or otherwise of their bedfellows, we'd spend all our time telling Benchley to calm down.....

:-)

P

That's fine, Pert. No one can see, consider, and respond to everything. I sure don't, and I hardly expect anyone else to.

Me, I doubt that either the Froot Loop debacle or the exploding gun thread is indicative of all that much, really -- other than what a nifty playground an internet forum can be for ones dark side. I didn't take the first example -- offensive as it was -- as a serious expression of intent to kill over petty thievery, and I didn't take the second -- offensive as it was -- as an actual policy recommendation. The people who wrote those things were not at the moment confronting thieves or crafting laws, just as you weren't actually presented with the choice of whether or not to begin noosing Francisco Montes. Since we aren't immediately facing the dilemmas that we're talking about, our discussions tend to turn toward the abstract, the figurative, the hypothetical, and (yes, Iverglas) the hyperbolic. If we were dealing with these things in the concrete, we might well make choices far different from the ones that our imaginations dream up in these conversations of ours.

So I guess that's just part of my take on the relation between what people post here and what their "official"* level of respect for human life might be (which is a good question after all, and I can't swear that I'm right).


Mary


*not quite the right word :(

that having read a large number of Natasha1's posts I'm convinced that he/she is either:

- genuinely in favour of gunning down anyone who steals anything from him/her, or who tries to take his/her gun away, or;

- the kind of person who likes to talk about it a lot.

I'm not tarring other people with that brush, but I do believe that Natasha1 has serious issues and his/her genuine belief is that it's right to kill someone who you catch stealing from you.

Yes, there is a lot of misleading quoting-out-of-context on here, but "I did take the first example -- offensive as it was -- as a serious expression of intent to kill over petty thievery."

Natasha1 has been unequivocal in stating that.

Since we aren't immediately facing the dilemmas that we're talking about, our discussions tend to turn toward the abstract, the figurative, the hypothetical, and (yes, Iverglas) the hyperbolic.

The Froot Loop person reiterated and confirmed and re-adopted her statements of intention and belief numerous times, and gave no indication whatsoever that she was speaking hyperbolically.

I don't think anyone here would tar anyone who did not expressly agree with her with the brush of holder of fascist disregard for human rights, particularly since a number of firarms control opponents expressly disagreed with and disapproved her statements. I don't know that anyone even believed that she was sincere in making them.

The fact is, though, that there are people who do very sincerely believe what she said. And the whole original point here was that it is those people who are fairly certainly most likely also to support the availability and use of the death penalty.

... the rest of us firearms control advocates can recognize hyperbole when we see it.

library_max's comment, in context:

Have you ever made a functioning single-shot pistol?

If not, how can you claim that it's easy?

Anyway, I would be very happy to see all the automatic and semiautomatic guns replaced with single-shot pistols. Especially the kind that tend to blow up in the shooter's face.

I've made fruit-juice alcohol (by accident). I know how easy it is to make. Distilling is not necessary. A suitcase is hardly relevant when any home hobbyist can make a bathtub full of booze any time.

The statement was made in response to a hypothetical that the speaker was rejecting: that anybody and his/her dog could easily whip up a supply of single-shot pistols. IF that were true, and IF the dangerousness of the resultant objects did not deter people from using them --

If gun-toting criminals had no reasonable expectation that their guns would not jam or explode instead of firing, that would make me happy. You guys talk a lot about motive. Does it not register what that would probably do to the motive to carry and use a gun?

-- THEN the speaker would be happy.

The speaker was actually saying that he believed that it was NOT true that anybody and his/her dog could easily whip up a supply of single-shot pistols, and that the dangerousness of the objects anybody did whip up WOULD deter their use. The statement --

Anyway, I would be very happy to see all the automatic and semiautomatic guns replaced with single-shot pistols. Especially the kind that tend to blow up in the shooter's face.

-- read in context, as part of a discussion of a particular issue, really just isn't a statement that the speaker would be happy if a bunch of guns exploded in a bunch of people's faces. I certainly didn't think it was, in any event, and I certainly saw no parallel with someone who flatly asserted that she would shoot and kill anyone found attempting to steal her property (not IF the person pulled a gun on her, or IF she would have died of hunger had she been deprived of the cereal) -- which is why I didn't think it called for comment.

Moderators, please erase if this information is too dangerous.

I made my last single-shot pistol when I was 11 years old.
Materials needed: Steel pipe, 5-10 mm inner diameter; Hammer; Wet Paper; L-shaped piece of wood; Electric wire;
Smash with the hammer one end of the pipe until its flat. With a little practice it can be wrapped like a tooth paste tube. Seal the remaining gap with wet paper, approximately 1 centimeter of it.
With the electric wire strap the pipe on the L-shaped wood. Drill a small hole on the top of the pipe, approximately 5 millimeters after the paper.
Wait 1 day for the paper to dry out. In the meantime start preparing the charge - take 3 match boxes, strip the heads out and ground them with a bottle. Do it slowly! Never mix it with the stuff from the striker!
Pour it into the pipe, with a wooden stick, press it hard, then push on top of it some paper, put the projectile, cap it with more paper.
Use: hold the handle like a real gun, with the thumb hold a matchstick over the hole, with the other hand strike a matchbox on the stick and voila!
Use of bearing balls is not recommended, they ricochet too much.
Time needed to make the gun: 15-20 minutes (you need some time for the sealing paper to dry out).
I’ve seen similar things with a spring striker, using cartridges for nail guns. Just add a projectile and you are good to go.

P.S. Never had a blown gun, never heard about one either.

P.P.S I stopped making them after I shot through my grandfather's front door.

And call it a day? People scouring the forums for every ignorant thing ever written gets old really quick.

If an imminent threat to the physical safety of others exists, it is justified homicide.

"If you have genuine reason to fear for your own safety (or that of your family/friends in the vicinity) then killing the person threatening that safety is justified" then I think everyone on here would agree...I.E. killing for genuine self-defense reasons is OK.

Purse snatching should not be a capital crime.

I wasn't sure about the post I replied to.

You did understand me correctly.

I CERTAINLY don't support the death penalty as practiced in the USA, but am not 100% sure that I'd ban it worldwide.

I might be able to endorse it in clear cases of genocide, other war crimes.........to be honest I am generally against it, but I'm currently struggling to think of a single reason why that scumbag who killed Caroline Dickinson shouldn't be killed.

"but I'm currently struggling to think of a single reason why that scumbag who killed Caroline Dickinson shouldn't be killed"

Because it's wrong.

It really can be that simple.

Yes, that would be a very good reason for not doing it. I suppose I should have been clearer and said, "I'm struggling to think of a single reason why it would be wrong to execute him."

I agree that it would be wrong to execute someone whose mental illness made them incapable of either controlling themselves or knowing that what they were doing was wrong.

Leaving aside the specifics of the Caroline Dickinson case, it seems that there ARE people who make the sane decision to do something that they know is hugely immoral (by society's standards) and who will continue to do it without regard to the hurt and injury it causes others. I struggle to see why it's wrong to executre someone who has deliberately chosen an "evil" path.

The problem here is that we're using the terms "right", "wrong", "good" and "evil"......these are generally subjective, societal concepts, and you can't just say, "Executing murderers is wrong" without arguing the case for what "wrong" means. Saying "it's wrong" basically means, "I don't agree with it happening". In many societies (e.g. the US) you'll find a fundamental split on the pro/anti death penalty debate, with each side claiming access to what is objectively right or wrong......neither has that objective access, and we really have to establish the kind of behaviour that society overall will or won't tolerate.

As it happens, I am actually generally against the death penalty because I think it is hypocritical to punish violence with violence. In emotive cases like the ones mentioned it's hard to restrain the desire for retribution.

... it's not justified. That's the standard that applies to violations of rights -- in this case, the right to life.

The self-defence rule is itself a violation of the right to life: society permits certain of its members to kill certain others of its members, thereby denying the ones being killed the right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process, and the right to the equal protection of the law.

Pretty much all societies have decided that these violations are justified in situations where the person who is killed was attempting to kill or seriously injure the person who then killed him/her in self-defence. Just as the violation of the right of free speech that is inherent in laws against perjury and incitement to riot and uttering death threats and the like is regarded as justified.

Is the death penalty a justified violation? Can the very high standard of "due process" that would have to be met, for such a serious and permanent violation of the right to life, ever be effectively met? The wrongful convictions and executions that have happened and continue to happen suggest not. (And the Supreme Court of Canada, for instance, has almost said that this standard couldn't be met, and recognized that in the US it is not met, when the Court refused to allow the extradition of two people accused of murder as long as they were liable to the death penalty if convicted.)

The human consensus that has led to conventions and laws against genocide and crimes against humanity, for instance, is closely related to the growing consensus against the death penalty, so it is difficult to argue that the death penalty might justifiably be retained for those crimes. Respect for the right to life doesn't admit of exceptions.

The problem here is that we're using the terms "right", "wrong", "good" and "evil"......these are generally subjective, societal concepts, and you can't just say, "Executing murderers is wrong" without arguing the case for what "wrong" means. Saying "it's wrong" basically means, "I don't agree with it happening".

That's true. And that's why what's important is not what "I" agree is right or wrong, it's what we agree should and should not be done. Personal beliefs are sometimes useful in arguing what the standards should be, but the standard applied has to be what we have agreed.

"Because s/he's a really, really bad person" may be sufficient justification for an individual to say "off with his/her head". But that individual might also consider that to be sufficient justification to say "off with his/her hand" in the case of a thief, or "off with his/her right to pray to the deity of his/her choice" in the case of a Zoroastrian, or "off with his/her freedom" in the case of a person of another colour whose personal services the speaker wishes to retain without paying for them or of a person who belongs to a group whose other members have done something violent, etc.

In many societies (e.g. the US) you'll find a fundamental split on the pro/anti death penalty debate, with each side claiming access to what is objectively right or wrong......neither has that objective access, and we really have to establish the kind of behaviour that society overall will or won't tolerate.

In this instance as in so many others, arguing about what is "objectively right or wrong" gets no one anywhere, that's for sure. But establishing the kind of behaviour that society will or won't tolerate doesn't imply that there are necessarily instances in which the death penalty is justified. There might be such instances (just as there might be instances in which violating women's right to reproductive choice might be justified, say if the human race were on the verge of extinction), but there might be none at all.

Killing in self-defence and in war are two instances in which we do believe it is justified to violate people's right to life by permitting some people to kill others without due process. We're not "right" or "wrong" in that, and there are certainly individuals who disagree with the consensus conclusion that both violations are justified. But it shows the height of the standard that is applied when deciding what violations of the right to life are justified and what aren't. Some kind of immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat to another life / other lives is generally demanded, and the death penalty just doesn't come up to that standard.

We do inflict punishment for the sake of punishment and not only to obtain protection against the individual being punished -- punishments involve society's retribution against offenders, denunciation of crimes, deterrence of other would-be offenders. But we require proportionality in doing that: no hand-offing for stealing Froot Loops, no life sentences for speeding.

Are there not other ways to obtain retribution and denounce horrific crimes? There are. Can homicide, or even genocide, be deterred by executing the perpetrators? Not likely, and not apparently. Is the death penalty justified? It's hard to argue that it is.

It all depends on whether you want to catch everybody's opinion or not.

I suspect (although I may be wrong) that there are many people on here who disagree profoundly with how the death penalty is used in the USA, but who wouldn't necessarily rule it out as suitable punishment in all possible cases.

Imagine if you'd given the choice between, "I agree with how the death penalty is used in China" and "Ban it totally".

Most people (I hope) wouldn't agree with China's methods of trial and execution, but many of those would still support the death penalty if done more "fairly", and others would still support the US system. Others would favour an outright ban.

Add to that the fact that different States have different rules (i.e how is the death penalty practised in the USA, given that not all States actually have it, and they have different rules and regs?) and you're left with a question that is interesting but impossible to answer (for many).

n/t

Why don't you poll with a question more to your liking :)

I agree in hindsight the question I set isn't particularly good.