Ronnie Lee Gardner to die by firing squad.

That, and the fact that murdering somebody for murdering somebody else is complete contradictory.

It's not one person murdering another, it's the people of that state saying that individual cannot cope with normal society, and whose crime was bad enough and the evidence strong enough that the individual was sentenced the death penalty. The death penalty is generally not ordered by a judge in a case unless there is virtually 100% certainty of the verdict. On top of all that, your taxes pay for that individual to be kept alive in prison... although I did watch something that was saying it is more expensive on the taxpayer to sentence someone to death than it is to sentence them to life in prison, which seems like a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit to me. I guess when the cost is just a few bullets, he at least saved them money in the materials department of the execution cost. Besides, who wants to be lethally injected like a bitch? Kudos to him for going out like a man.

It's like the adult yelling at their kid in Wal-mart for yelling in the store. It's contradictory. As is saying you cannot function in society since you murdered somebody, thereforth we will kill you. The way you worded it makes no difference. I agree it's a waste of money to hold somebody in prison for years and years to go through legal paramaters that don't necessairily matter, but then again what is the success rate of prison? The entire infastructure is a broken system, founded by the greedy, and kept malnourished by the politicians you and I keep electing into office to keep the corruption cycle alive. Down with the man.

It's like the adult yelling at their kid in Wal-mart for yelling in the store. It's contradictory.

I forgot to explicitly say this in my last post, and you didn't seem to reason it yourself. It's not so much the punishment, as it is the threat of punishment. If that kid in wal-mart were mouthing off and bitching about a toy they want, then they see another kid getting spanked nearby for the same thing, they may at least think twice. The argument is flawed, however, due to the fact that most kids are not logically developed at such an age. Moreover, like most young animals(yes humans are animals Demosthenes, as much as you may want to detach yourself from the human condition), they respond to physical discipline long before they learn underlying reasons for the things they should not do.

:EDIT:
If the penalty for murder were simply 5 years in prison, how many more murders would occur in this country do you wager? By contrast, if the penalty for driving drunk were suddenly change to death by firing squad, then I can guarantee that there would be a VERY sharp decline in the amount of DUIs. Fortunately, this is not the case, and we have punishments that [at least try to] fit the crime.
:EDIT:

Virtually one-hundred percent? Virtually? That is unacceptable. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty, then it is a monstrosity.

You should try enrolling in a statistics class and learning about type I and type II errors - if you haven't already. Fact: any decision is always made with a certain degree of uncertainty. As for the small uncertainties of our judicial system being monstrosities I must disagree. The holocaust was a monstrosity, these errors are just general uncertainty in a given system. It is regrettable, but really nothing more. Judges try to reduce the severity of a type I error by varying degree of punishment. As I've said, people are only sentenced to the death penalty when there is an indubitable amount of evidence against them. The layman would call it 100% certain, or "beyond a reasonable doubt." The statistician would say that one is 99.9999% sure. You really should try googling some of the cases and seeing for yourself, I'm sure you wouldn't feel any remorse for the 'victim.' [To clarify, when I say victim I don't mean the victim in the case, but instead I am sarcastically referring to the person on trial, whom I take to understand you see as being 'victimized' by society when they are sentenced to the death penalty]

Moreover, like most young animals(yes humans are animals Demosthenes, as much as you may want to detach yourself from the human condition)

I don't understand where this is coming from. I believe I have been one of the most assiduous advocates of this idea in the history of Zelaron.

I forgot to explicitly say this in my last post, and you didn't seem to reason it yourself. It's not so much the punishment, as it is the threat of punishment. If that kid in wal-mart were mouthing off and bitching about a toy they want, then they see another kid getting spanked nearby for the same thing, they may at least think twice. The argument is flawed, however, due to the fact that most kids are not logically developed at such an age. Moreover, like most young animals(yes humans are animals Demosthenes, as much as you may want to detach yourself from the human condition), they respond to physical discipline long before they learn underlying reasons for the things they should not do.

A strong case can, and has been made that the death penalty is impotent as a deterrent, though I have no intention of making this case here.

You should try enrolling in a statistics class and learning about type I and type II errors - if you haven't already. Fact: any decision is always made with a certain degree of uncertainty. As for the small uncertainties of our judicial system being monstrosities I must disagree. The holocaust was a monstrosity, these errors are just general uncertainty in a given system. It is regrettable, but really nothing more. Judges try to reduce the severity of a type I error by varying degree of punishment. As I've said, people are only sentenced to the death penalty when there is an indubitable amount of evidence against them. The layman would call it 100% certain, or "beyond a reasonable doubt." The statistician would say that one is 99.9999% sure. You really should try googling some of the cases and seeing for yourself, I'm sure you wouldn't feel any remorse for the 'victim.' [To clarify, when I say victim I don't mean the victim in the case, but instead I am sarcastically referring to the person on trial, whom I take to understand you see as being 'victimized' by society when they are sentenced to the death penalty]

Again, you are free to partake in all the lexical masturbation you want. Whether or not I know the difference between alpha and beta error (I do) or have taken a statistics class (I have) is irrelevant. The point is, when you are dealing with someone's life, uncertainty is unacceptable. Even one innocent man's death by this method is unacceptable. But when the uncertainty is as high as the statistic presented in my last post suggests, I don't see how anyone but a sociopath can argue in favor of the death penalty.

As I've said, people are only sentenced to the death penalty when there is an indubitable amount of evidence against them. The layman would call it 100% certain, or "beyond a reasonable doubt." The statistician would say that one is 99.9999% sure.

You keep saying this but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

It's not one person murdering another, it's the people of that state saying that individual cannot cope with normal society, and whose crime was bad enough and the evidence strong enough that the individual was sentenced the death penalty.

The death penalty absolutely is murder. You take an unarmed man, and kill him. You may add whatever rituals, procedures, and slick word-games you want to try and rationalize this, but you are killing someone in cold blood. This to me is a state-sanctioned murder, no matter how detestable the victim of the death penalty may be.

The death penalty is generally not ordered by a judge in a case unless there is virtually 100% certainty of the verdict.

Virtually one-hundred percent? Virtually? That is unacceptable. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty, then it is a monstrosity. Over the last decade there have been on average 5.5 exonerations per year for death row inmates. The death penalty is cruel, unusual, heinous, and based on these numbers gross negligence on the part of our government.

The death penalty absolutely is murder. You take an unarmed man, and kill him.

Well I'm sure not gonna give him a gun, then kill him. I can actually see where S2 AM is coming from. Plus, seriously, that guy looks like a demonic thumb.

Well I'm sure not gonna give him a gun, then kill him.

You seem to have completely missed the point. The point was that the death penalty is the cold-blooded robbery of the life of a man who poses no threat.

You seem to have completely missed the point. The point was that the death penalty is the cold-blooded robbery of the life of a man who poses no threat.

He'd pose a threat if I gave him a gun, now, wouldn't he?

He'd pose a threat if I gave him a gun, now, wouldn't he?

Well, of course he would. As would anyone.

I still think you're missing the point, but perhaps you could elaborate on what you are trying to say.

He looks like an evil cone head. If I give him a gun and set him free, what example am I setting for Mdselctr?

Well, of course he would. As would anyone. I still think you're missing the point, but perhaps you could elaborate on what you are trying to say.

In case you haven't caught on yet, Skurai is being stupid. Probably intentionally, but it's hard to tell.

Virtually one-hundred percent? Virtually? That is unacceptable. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty, then it is a monstrosity. Over the last decade there have been on average 5.5 exonerations per year for death row inmates. The death penalty is cruel, unusual, heinous, and based on these numbers gross negligence on the part of our government.

I actually recall hearing about the fact that one of our southern states exonerates just as many people on death row as they execute. That's a pretty alarming statistic.