The Death Penalty

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The Death Penalty

You're paying money no matter what. You're actually paying more for the death penalty.

Oh, and to the constant argument "they did something bad, it doesn't feel right for them not to suffer in return"; **** that. The willingness to hurt others is at the core of the problem in the first place. Are you jealous of murderers or something? You hate them for choosing to satisfy themselves at the cost of another, so you use them to do the same? Get the hell over yourselves.

[Scythe_Star]

Re: The Death Penalty

Let me drop my opinion , ok the death penalty, there comes a time when we have to look at a person and really judge if they are a menace to society or not. Ive known people that have did things to support their family, sure it was bad what they did and it wasnt right but should they die for trying to support their family? sure they could get a job, unless you are constantly judged by your color or the workplace you are at is discriminating you and there is nothing you can do about it. well I do believe certain people just shouldnt be let loose into society, I say the victim's family kill them the not government. I have no natural desire to hurt anyone, but if we dont hurt someone then they would ultimately hurt you or walk all over you and your family and do you really want that? personally I beleive we really dont have the right to judge someone, but sometimes you have to go against your beliefs to better support your life and family.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The Death Penalty

You're missing the point. You can prevent such a person from killing or injuring other people by imprisonment as easily as by the death penalty, and imprisonment is the lesser of the two evils. If you're going to go against your values you might as well choose the manner in which you sacrifice the least of them.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: The Death Penalty

I have mixed view on this as well...

Honestly i agree that jail life (because of humanitarians) is a lot better than you think. The only thing you really have to worry about in jail is the other people with you and going insane from boredom. This is significantly less to worry about than if you are on the street where most criminals come from.

Spending life in prison: as humane as it sounds, would suck hardcore. The person would be placed in the jail cell for the rest of their known life with nothing to do. They would almost literally be suffering everyday mentally until they die. The only reason i could see this as good is that the only time it is too late to prove their innocence due to new evidence is when they die nearly 30 years later.

If someone knows that from the crimes they have committed will land them life in jail then they will know that they have nothing to lose but their life. So in this case they will continue their crime spree as long as they can. (Dont know how this fits into the conversation but it was a random on topic thought to consider).

Also, getting the death sentence (as i would only be able to imagine) wouldnt scare a hardened criminal so thinking of making it a legal practice to 'scare' them is not very logical.

Opposing this, although it gives more trials that could prove their innocence, giving the death sentence severely limits the chance someone who is innocent will be freed.

One last though, we as humans are not all knowing and as such do not have the ability to judge someone and say that they deserve to die. Through their actions we can judge them according to the crimes they have committed, however this does not give any one person (or group of people) any kind of right to say "YOU DESERVE TO DIE" and then do it.

Even with all the unethical arguments against it and having said all that, i am leaning more towards the pro death sentence side but still remain fairly moderate on the subject.

[unkdavar]

Re: The Death Penalty

How much is a life worth? If someone can solve that we wouldn't have to think about this question at all. If one life was worth as much as another then kill them all.


By leaving someone who commits a murder alive we are saying that the criminal's life is worth more then the person he murdered.

[krazykhalid]

Re: The Death Penalty

i tihnk the death penalty should be used for the people who are obviously guilty, for the worst of the worst of crimes, EG: Karla Homolka, i dont want this freakshow living in possibly my neighbourhood, knowing what she and her husband have done to their victims, its retarded that she's free now... she should have been put to death along with her husband, too bad Canada does not have the death penalty.

P.S if you dont know who karla homolka is, look her up on google or wikipedia...

*EDIT* adding onto my original lil post,

the death penalty should only be put on people, who have commited the worst of the worst of crimes, such as first degree murder, and which looking at the evidence, the credability of the witnesses, and other factors, whether they are indeed 100% guilty, and depending on the way they had done the crime, like did the victim suffer, and to what degree they suffered, while they had died, or how severe the crime had been, they should have been put to death.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: The Death Penalty

You cant really measure how much the victim suffered though unless you ask them like someone said about asking the person if the stabs hurt. Also, i agree with unkdavar, in that we cannot show how much one life is worth in comparison to another.

[trillobyite]

Re: The Death Penalty

Oh get over yourself. Not everyone is as shallow as you. I've personally had conversations with people who have had their whole families murdered in front of them and who still opposed the death penalty.

What the hell type of word is shallow to describe it? There are a significantly larger number of families who DON'T oppose the death penalty after seeing their families murderered in front of them. The victim should really have the right to choose the punishment for the killer. If someone massacred my family, I would strongly prefer to see them dead, and I don't care how "shallow" that makes me. I'd rather not see deeper into the "poor" criminal.

If the family forgives the killer then I don't see why the death penalty should be instituted. But in most unreasonable homicides, I doubt that is the case.

Because they certainly aren't eating while they stay in prison during the appeals! Great argument! So the death penalty is better than life because it makes taxpayers spend money helping a person fight a battle they probably won't win, regardless of their guilt or innocence, and this in addition to the other costs a life sentence would impose... GREAT THINKING!

That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.

The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.

[trillobyite]

Re: The Death Penalty

The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.

Ohhh. Ok. I don't agree though. Like I said, I'd rather tax money go to feeding and housing people who have not been convicted of a major felony than I would people who have been convicted. Obviously the cost is higher when added to payment for the DA and possibly defense, but I wasn't arguing that the cost is less burdensome on taxpayers, I was arguing that I'd rather extra money go to proving the potential innocence of an accused over money going to feeding and helping someone who is already convicted. As to the fact that people end up on death row for years and the appeals process takes forever....that is a problem, but not a problem inherent in the death penalty itself. Just like alleged racism (the whole 50% of people who kill blacks given the DP while 90% of people who kill whites given the DP) is a huge problem, I don't think that's a problem inherent in just the concept of a death penalty.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: The Death Penalty

I think the biggest problem people have with this issue is not about the money necessarily, its about the ethics associated with making such a decision.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The Death Penalty

What the hell type of word is shallow to describe it?

A good word.

There are a significantly larger number of families who DON'T oppose the death penalty after seeing their families murderered in front of them.

So?

The victim should really have the right to choose the punishment for the killer.

Why? Wait; what? The victim is typically dead. Are you counting witnesses/family as victims? So because someone the family cared about is no longer with them, they now own the person responsible and can do with him as they wish? "You took away my husband's life, so I'll substitute my ownership of his life with yours"? One on top of the other, every meaning which reveals itself in minds like yours shows interaction only in terms of coercion, subjugation, and ownership of others. These are the feelings which allow human beings to murder other human beings, please don't try to pretend they're rational or justifiable. This is the hypocrisy which is responsible for all worldly ills.

If someone massacred my family, I would strongly prefer to see them dead, and I don't care how "shallow" that makes me.

That's a shame. You're refusing to be the better person because it feels more satisfying to satiate hatred.

I'd rather not see deeper into the "poor" criminal.

This is the best part. You think I must be defending the criminal's actions, or giving his life more consideration than your families because I don't think you have the right to do what he did not, no matter how "just" your feelings might be. I don't care about your feelings, they don't justify anything. There is no way of showing which feelings are legitimate and which are not. All feelings are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately baseless. This isn't to say people shouldn't have feelings, but that the important consideration is what the feelings are used for, and for a murderer or for you to employ your feelings to dehumanize others and justify violence is something at the root of all existing death and ill-will, and all to come.

I don't agree though. Like I said, I'd rather tax money go to feeding and housing people who have not been convicted of a major felony than I would people who have been convicted.

...you're going to end up doing it with or without the death penalty...

Obviously the cost is higher when added to payment for the DA and possibly defense, but I wasn't arguing that the cost is less burdensome on taxpayers, I was arguing that I'd rather extra money go to proving the potential innocence of an accused over money going to feeding and helping someone who is already convicted.

........ .... ... An appeal is done on behalf of someone already convicted. The money ...

oh for crying out loud. You're feeding a convicted person no matter what. Get used to the idea. The argument you've chosen is quantifiably baseless.

As to the fact that people end up on death row for years and the appeals process takes forever....that is a problem, but not a problem inherent in the death penalty itself.

It's a problem which manifests much more seriously within the death penalty.

Just like alleged racism (the whole 50% of people who kill blacks given the DP while 90% of people who kill whites given the DP) is a huge problem, I don't think that's a problem inherent in just the concept of a death penalty.

Perhaps not, but it's a problem worsened significantly by the fact this inequity manifests in terms of life or death rather than in terms of freedom or a reasonable amount less freedom.

[trillobyite]

Re: The Death Penalty

A good word.

Well I can't get over myself. I have enough pride to abhorr a killer.

Why? Wait; what? The victim is typically dead. Are you counting witnesses/family as victims? So because someone the family cared about is no longer with them, they now own the person responsible and can do with him as they wish? "You took away my husband's life, so I'll substitute my ownership of his life with yours"? One on top of the other, every meaning which reveals itself in minds like yours shows interaction only in terms of coercion, subjugation, and ownership of others. These are the feelings which allow human beings to murder other human beings, please don't try to pretend they're rational or justifiable. This is the hypocrisy which is responsible for all worldly ills.

Yes. If the killer feels he has the right to subjugate and kill someone important to me, I feel I have the right to subjugate and kill him. I don't see the logic behind how this thought denotes that my mind can only think of human relationships in terms of coercion and subjugation. Not every human interaction is in the context of the specific discussion we are having now about murder.

That's a shame. You're refusing to be the better person because it feels more satisfying to satiate hatred.

I acknowledge that other people follow different moral codes, and that's why I said if the victim's family can sympathize with the killer, no execution should take place. I myself think differently than most. I grew up in a ****hole in Iraq, and personally, if someone chooses me as an enemy without provocation, I have no qualms in stooping to his/her level to defeat him/her. I know that seems brutal to you (and probably most non-middle easterners), but that's the way I operate.

This is the best part. You think I must be defending the criminal's actions, or giving his life more consideration than your families because I don't think you have the right to do what he did not, no matter how "just" your feelings might be. I don't care about your feelings, they don't justify anything. There is no way of showing which feelings are legitimate and which are not. All feelings are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately baseless. This isn't to say people shouldn't have feelings, but that the important consideration is what the feelings are used for, and for a murderer or for you to employ your feelings to dehumanize others and justify violence is something at the root of all existing death and ill-will, and all to come.

So which feelings should the government support and which they should condemn? Feelings of revenge are out of the question, right? What about feeling bad for the poor? Well, they only make the GDP look worse by taking in welfare and depriving the government of money, so screw them right? Should sympathy, as irrelevant and baseless as it is, be ignored? What about fun? Should the government promote conventions and activities and fairs, or is fun just another baseless feeling? Is retribution somehow morally *lower* than those other feelings? I have the right to feel what I feel. The government has no right to make sure I can't feel satisfied by retribution if a killer has chosen someone important to me to satisy himself.

...you're going to end up doing it with or without the death penalty...

No, with the death penalty he/she is fed and treated until the day the person is proven guilty. The few months between the a final conviction and execution can't really be said to count. Without the DP the person has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for committing a crime and is now being given sustenance by taxpayers.

........ .... ... An appeal is done on behalf of someone already convicted. The money ...

oh for crying out loud. You're feeding a convicted person no matter what. Get used to the idea. The argument you've chosen is quantifiably baseless.

Ok, let me be more clear. I don't mean until the first legal conviction. I mean until the final point, the pont of no return, at which the execution date has been set and sealed. Though, I do believe clemency hearings should be given. If the person is granted clemency and gets life in prison then fine, money should go to feeding him/her. I don't want every murderer killed. If the person has an IQ below 80 or something, or killed someone who emotionally ruined his/her life, that's a different story. Even if the victim's family wants the person dead, if the victim wasn't qutie innocent, I can agree that the DP should not be used.

It's a problem which manifests much more seriously within the death penalty.

...?

Perhaps not, but it's a problem worsened significantly by the fact this inequity manifests in terms of life or death rather than in terms of freedom or a reasonable amount less freedom.

That's true. It's a damned significant problem, and one which must be corrected immediately. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty significantly be declined in use until those sorts of kinks are out of the system.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The Death Penalty

Well I can't get over myself. I have enough pride to abhorr a killer.

...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.

Yes. If the killer feels he has the right to subjugate and kill someone important to me, I feel I have the right to subjugate and kill him.

Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

I don't see the logic behind how this thought denotes that my mind can only think of human relationships in terms of coercion and subjugation. Not every human interaction is in the context of the specific discussion we are having now about murder.

No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

I acknowledge that other people follow different moral codes, and that's why I said if the victim's family can sympathize with the killer, no execution should take place.

This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

I myself think differently than most.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

I grew up in a ****hole in Iraq, and personally, if someone chooses me as an enemy without provocation, I have no qualms in stooping to his/her level to defeat him/her. I know that seems brutal to you (and probably most non-middle easterners), but that's the way I operate.

This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

So which feelings should the government support and which they should condemn?

Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Feelings of revenge are out of the question, right?

When they result in violence, yes. If by revenge you intend to beat someone in a sporting contest that's fine, but I don't think that's how you mean it.

What about feeling bad for the poor?

This is fine.

Well, they only make the GDP look worse by taking in welfare and depriving the government of money, so screw them right?

I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Should sympathy, as irrelevant and baseless as it is, be ignored? What about fun?

Both should be left up to individual discretion as neither leads to harm. If for some reason certain types of sympathy or fun seeking lead to harm of others, these specific types should be restricted.

Should the government promote conventions and activities and fairs, or is fun just another baseless feeling?

Fun is subjective to the point of being baseless. Or rather, the basis of fun is individual taste, and the basis of individual taste is something no one can discern or prove as having any level of legitimacy for others. So, no, the government shouldn't promote anything relating to "fun". They shouldn't restrict it either. As long as fun doesn't hurt anyone, people are entitled to it, and are entitled to decide for themselves what fun constitutes.

Is retribution somehow morally *lower* than those other feelings?

In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

I have the right to feel what I feel.

True.

The government has no right to make sure I can't feel satisfied by retribution if a killer has chosen someone important to me to satisy himself.

Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

No, with the death penalty he/she is fed and treated until the day the person is proven guilty.

You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

The few months between the a final conviction and execution can't really be said to count.

Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

Without the DP the person has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for committing a crime and is now being given sustenance by taxpayers.

... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?

Ok, let me be more clear. I don't mean until the first legal conviction. I mean until the final point, the pont of no return, at which the execution date has been set and sealed.

This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Though, I do believe clemency hearings should be given. If the person is granted clemency and gets life in prison then fine, money should go to feeding him/her. I don't want every murderer killed. If the person has an IQ below 80 or something, or killed someone who emotionally ruined his/her life, that's a different story. Even if the victim's family wants the person dead, if the victim wasn't qutie innocent, I can agree that the DP should not be used.

So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.

...?

Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

That's true. It's a damned significant problem, and one which must be corrected immediately. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty significantly be declined in use until those sorts of kinks are out of the system.

No offense, but all the the concessions you've been trying to make ultimately seem to have no effect the problems with your position.

[trillobyite]

Re: The Death Penalty

Edit: If we go on like this I'm going to end up leaving the debate, because I get tired out really, really easily when dealing with a massive amount of text. It's a big fault and I may not belong on CT for it, but I should let you know....I will most likely respond though...

...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.

My opinions on a killer who kills someone I'm not fond of are irrelevant. I would have no right to interfere.

Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

Well, frankly, I dont see why I can't punish the killer by the same rule he breaks. That itself is a human trait. In Dante's inferno, people are punished ironically as a result of whatever sin they commit. Hammurabi says "eye for an eye". Like I said, I operate differently than others. I think two wrongs make a right. The source of human ill is those who initially choose to break the rules, not those who respond.

No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

Well we've already had run-ins in the past, me and you, so I think we'll come to be very much judgemental of each other here on CT

This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

Well in my eyes, as soon as someone murders another, that person forfeits his/her right not to be punished in turn. Whether the victim's family chooses to use that to seek revenge or chooses instead to forgive is up to them. The problem with this debate is that I define society's ills not in the desire of humans to kill and then for revenge to be sought after, but for anyone to believe they have the right to kill initially with no good reason.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

No I don't mean in terms of just the death penalty. I'm one of those people who sees things more in black and white than in grey. I think sometimes there is no compromise and that sometimes there can be only two sides or two options.

This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

Well of course it doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy, but that's because self-defense is the ultimate legitimate excuse for killing another.

Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Plenty more feelings other than revenge can lead to rage. But I don't see the anger that results from adultery being outlawed, or adultery itself outlawed.

I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Actually I strongly agree with you on that. I guess I had trouble finding a good example, but I think you know the point I was getting at.

In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

We're going to reach a loop again here. In my view, a killer places him/herself lower than those hurt by his/her actions through killing. Not everyone in the world is equal. A politician convicted for scandal should not be entrusted to hold his position and should not be treated with sympathy. That person is a criminal. That person placed himself below, as a human being, everyone else who is qualified to be an effective politician who wouldn't engage in corruption. A dictator who murders his own people is below other humans. By your logic, people like Adolf Eichmann or Mussolini shouldn't have been hanged because they were no longer a threat. Now I can actually see the argument behind that, but I just don't agree. By doing what they've done those people are officially lower, in every sense of the word, than those they have harmed. They have subjected themselves to the will of those they have harmed.

Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

Well of course there shouldn't be some honor revenge killing on the spot. Procedures have to be followed.

You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

Ok yeah you're right. But that's a problem with the American implementation of the death penalty more than with the Dp itself.

Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

As cold-hearted as I've been sounding this whole thread, even I believe the most brutal of killers should be given food, hell in fact, the best food there is, if they are going to be executed shortly.

... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?

I think we're getting way too deep into this eating thing...my only point is that without the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted and will be given sustenance by taxpayers, and with the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted (at some point- and that seems to be the problem here, since at what point ends up a huge mess because of the appeals system), and won't be fed forever by taxpayers.

This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Well the emphasis here is the "likely until the same age" and that once again goes into the whole appeals problem.

So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.

I think it's fair for an impartial jury to make the decision of whether the killer's motives were legitimate enough not to be killed or whether they were twisted enough for him/her to deserve death.
But, and here's another pointless concession, clemency is not enough. For instance, Wanda Jean's victims' family were mostly forgiving, and she had a borderline retarded IQ. She was not granted clemency, and she did not deserve the death penalty. And Texas and many of the states who use the DP really overuse it. The very fact that innocent people could be on death row is terrifying. Imo, that's the greatest argument against the DP and one I have trouble responding to.

Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

Yes I've acknowledged a thousand times the seriousness of the appeals problem and the necessity of a more effective- but no more harsh- method of finalizing conviction.