So in the end what do we have here?
We have John Smith who believes passionately in exeucting criminals but with not a lot of problems with the innocent being caught up in the hangmans noose as well
We have Ian who reject all evidence contrary to his opinion and while he states that no innocent should ever be executed he has this quaint belief that an error-free death penalty is possible because of 'dna and forensics'.
We have Avram who seems to believe in vengeance for everything and seems quite happy for the innocent to die along with the guilty. Worst point of course is that this beleif applies to arabs not jews. (and I am an Israel supporter)
We have incontrovertible evidence that not only is the DP not a deterrent but seems to increase the rate of violent crime.
The argument about 'protecting soceiety from recidivist criminals' always fails because the option of life without parole exists. But then there isnt the joy of killing someone.
so in short, there is no reason, no justification and no positive outcome for the DP. On the other hand there is the guaranteed execution of innocent people and an increase in violent crime. And thats before we even begin to discuss the moral ambiguity of the state killing someone.
so, bloodlusting DP proponents... tell me again why the DP is good. Do a pro and con analysis of it. See if you can even make a half-decent case.
I tip you will ignore all the above and go back to Milat, Ferguson or whoever and reduce the debate to your own pitiful arguments-by-example rather than an argument on principle.
over to you bloodlusters!