[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

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.

Originally Posted by trillobyite

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.