I see them as different because one follows/is done in accordance to the law and one is not.

... that's enitrely irrelevant. If it were legal to kill people with dark skin, would that be good?

That, too, is entirely irrelevant..

It's not about people with dark skin. It is about people who commit horrific crimes.

both..

horrific crimes are illegal

and I said horrific crimes to avoid the "so people with parking tickets should be executed because illegal parking is illegal" that I'm sure was coming.

If they're horrific, that doesn't justify killing them as it falls under two wrongs make a right, as us killing them is horrific, and coupling it with legality is still arguing from authority.

The main problem is that you've refused to fill in any gaps between "they killed" and "We should kill them". You're basically saying If A, then B. So, C. Either that, or you're using the two wrongs make a right fallacy from head to toe.

I don't see execution as horrific.

so, once again, I don't buy into "two wrongs make a right."

If I thought execution was horrific, I couldn't support the death penalty (because two wrongs do not make a right)

the only reason I support it is that it would cost a lot of money to keep all those people alive and in prison.

You mean it would take alot to suuport them. Which, in some cases it wouldn't. If we could make prison more of a punishment (as I've said before) then we'd have less people in prison, less money would have to be used up on convicts and it may make prison more of an effactive tool for warding off crime.

Harder prisons haven't really been shown to be much of an effective deterrent.

Especially if someone spends life in prison, being harsh on them isn't a good idea.

Congratulations, America, for killing a person who may, at least on some level, have changed his conciense even if he couldn't own up to what he'd done.

Next time you find people protesting against your ways, don't come to me to ask why.

One news reporter who was in favor of it said that the United States had to fulfill its death threats, that it helped, because if the USA didn't, no one would take it seriously and would therefore some people would possibly murder without fear of it.

The reason he didn't was becasue the govenor (Swartzy) didn't want the people thinking that because this guy was famous and that he was famous, that he was just going to let him go. He was afraid that epople would judge him harshly on that. Either way someone was going to be upset so he just went with the majority (conservative) choice and killed him. There was nothing he could do to appease everyone.

The reason he didn't was becasue the govenor (Swartzy) didn't want the people thinking that because this guy was famous and that he was famous, that he was just going to let him go. He was afraid that epople would judge him harshly on that. Either way someone was going to be upset so he just went with the majority (conservative) choice and killed him. There was nothing he could do to appease everyone.

I just thought Id add a little bit to this thread, if you really want to know the tragedy of this issue, it is those that Mr. Williams killed.

Here are the pictures of these poor people. I don't see how anyone who has seen these pictures can not agree that Mr. Williams deserved the death penalty, regardless of the changes he was fortunate enought to have the time to make before his execution.

*****WARNING***** This link has the actual pictures of those that Mr. Williams shot, they are EXTREMELY graphic. I don't have stomach to look at them, only look if you do.

I wouldn't call them extremely graphic except for the last one.

And your reasoning still doesn't make sense. Here are some pictures of him killing people, they make me feel sick, so we should kill him?

Do you realise why appeal to emotion and non sequitor are declared as things you shouldn't do in an argument?

Seriously though, the point isn't what the punishment is, it is that he choose that punishment when he decided to kill these people.

Why are we always trying to eliminate the consequences of peoples actions?

...what?

Being killed for once having been a killer is not a natural "consequence". It is state endorsed murder.

Shove your Mr.Spock joke. There is no connection between "has killed" and "Be killed" and I think everyone knows it.

When Mr. Williams killed those people, he knew that the consequence if he got caught was the death penalty. So when he choose to murder, he accepted the consequences that that might bring.

Then what is a natural consequence for murder? It seems to me that CP is one of the most fair consequences we have.

The point of the pictures is that it makes what actually happened real. We can talk about a death, and does anyone really comprehend what that means? Don't you think its important to understand what we are talking about when we are talking about human life?

That's a terrible argument for a number of reasons; the most obvious being that it still doesn't justify a thing, the next most obvious is that if he believed he would get away with it, it wouldn't apply, and the last being that it smells of bullyish arguments where you can make up all kinds of insane punishments for laws and when people get caught just ell them they should have known about it when they broke the law.

How? How is CP a fair consequence? Because it's an Eye for an Eye? Oh, that's fair.

The natural consequence for someone who is a murderer, is to put them somewhere where they can't murder people. Killing them is sinking to their level. Though you appear to have no problem with that.

If this was just about human life, then another life has been wasted, and there's no two ways about it.