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.

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.

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.

I really haven't been able to form an opinion on this. It is really an emotionally tied thing. With no emotional tie I say get rid of it, but plenty of family members of those killed by death row inmates will not feel justice has been served until that person is dead. As long as the person is irrevokably proven guilty, I will not lose sleep over the death penalty. Which is to say I don't think it should be an option without at the very least DNA evidence.

But does killing someone undo the crime? Killing someone to make a family feel better is dumb because you're just in turn hurting another family(the family of the person being put to death.)

There are other less barbaric ways for a family to cope with the loss of a loved one than demanding someone be put to death for it.

I understand that there are emotional reasons behind the death penalty, but that's just not good enough when it comes to deciding whether someone should live or die. That should not be based in emotion.

Could not have said it better.

I agree it shouldn't be, but it is. I suppose denying emotion entirely when making decisions is denying your humanity.

Not all decisions need to be based in rationality. However, some should. When it comes to whether or not to take a life, I definitely think it should.

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.

Boo for it, its el gay.