Death Penalty

I can not endorse the idea that the ends justify the means, especially in this case. Also, I don't see how someone's continued existence in a jail cell makes him a threat to society.

Well, there are different cases.

If they're in solitary confinement, they're a danger to themselves (sometimes), but definitely others. Someone who is such a danger is 100% wasting society's resources by keeping them away from us. These persons are typically not able to be rehabilitated (no honest statistics to back this statement up, it was something I read long ago).

In my opinion, if you kill another human being in cold blood, you have forfeited your right to govern your own life once you're caught.

Well, there are different cases. If they're in solitary confinement, they're a danger to themselves (sometimes), but definitely others. Someone who is such a danger is 100% wasting society's resources by keeping them away from us. These persons are typically not able to be rehabilitated (no honest statistics to back this statement up, it was something I read long ago).

I think that a human life, no matter how depraved, is at least worthy of mere existence. If a marginal fraction of society's resources need to go towards his continued existence, I think it's a cost that's more than justified.

Also, I think the evidence suggests a different motive for the death penalty. I think it's a facade that the death penalty is in place to protect society. There is no evidence that I have seen that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, or that there are lower rates of murder in states that have imposed a death penalty.

Furthermore, we don't kill people for protection. We kill people so we feel that we have the right to pass moral judgment on them. For instance, he who is declared mentally insane, with no hope of rehabilitation, is allowed to live, albeit in a mental facility. He has no hope, as far as we know, to be rehabilitated. He is more of a danger to society on the outside than a mentally competent person who let his emotions get the better of him. Yet he's kept alive.

Furthermore, we don't kill people for protection. We kill people so we feel that we have the right to pass moral judgment on them. For instance, he who is declared mentally insane, with no hope of rehabilitation, is allowed to live, albeit in a mental facility. He has no hope, as far as we know, to be rehabilitated. He is more of a danger to society on the outside than a mentally competent person who let his emotions get the better of him. Yet he's kept alive.

Warfare is a perfect example of how we kill people for protection, especially in defense. Your mental facility conjecture isn't quite accurate as it doesn't suggest that the insane person had ended another's life. I also would believe in a lesser punishment for a 'crime of passion' as you describe instead of a first-degree murder, but this can be easily exploited.

I also am a believer in that a person should have the right to determine the time and manner of their death, if they so choose. I suppose I'm a little more cavalier regarding human life than others.

In my opinion, if you kill another human being in cold blood, you have forfeited your right to govern your own life once you're caught.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

+1 for that.

Repeat offenders are a danger and burden to society and should be executed. I feel as though you're a murderer, a rapist, a pedaphile, or any number of heinous crimes like that then execution should be an option.