Poll

James Morcan wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Some on here are very angry and are full of hate...."

Hmmm....
Assuming what is in the hearts of those in a poll whose group members you do not know and assuming anyone who holds o..."

I am sorry for how that was presented, But SOME people here are angry when it comes to this subject. And it fills them with hate for the moment, hate for the murdered. How can it do otherwise? I was not judging that as being a wrong thing. No one likes their families, children, etc. to be tortured or killed. The natural thing to want to do is to kill that person, that is the first impulse of many, if not most.

And if you read what I wrote you will see that I was referring to this subject and the feelings of angry and hate were for the moment, the moment when we are thinking about killers:

"Some on here are very angry and are full of hate. I have not addressed those people personally. They have to deal with their own feelings on this subject, and this subject really is a tough one." Re-read the last sentence. Still I am sorry if I hurt anyone in regards to this statement.

Jessica wrote: "Here is an article on the death penalty that is really good. It comes from "Psychology Today":

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...

1. It is mo..."

Another excellent article!.

In 1983, the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama was described in a sworn testimony by his attorney: “At 8:30 p.m. the first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted…from the electrode tied to Mr. Evans' left leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. The electrode apparently burst from the strap holding it in place. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr. Evans' face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead.” "The electrode on the left leg was re-fastened…Mr. Evans was administered a second…jolt of electricity. The stench of burning flesh was nauseating. More smoke emanated from his leg and head. Again, the doctors examined Mr. Evans. [They] reported that his heart was still beating, and that he was still alive. At that time, I asked the prison commissioner, who was communicating on an open telephone line to Governor George Wallace, to grant clemency on the grounds that Mr. Evans was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The request…was denied.” "At 8:40 p.m., a third charge of electricity…was passed through Mr. Evans' body. At 8:44, the doctors pronounced him dead. The execution of John Evans took fourteen minutes." Afterwards, officials were embarrassed by what one observer called the "Barbaric ritual." The prison spokesman remarked, "This was supposed to be a very clean manner of administering death."[26]

Is this what you call justice, James?

Iona wrote: "Is this what you call justice, James? ..."

Don't recall having spoken of justice in the context you're using it, Iona. I called for humanly killing certain psychopaths. Voting in favor of the death penalty for exceptionally evil psychopaths does not mean voting in favor of the present US death penalty system, nor does it mean barbaric historical cases or anything of that nature.

Also, I'm one of about half of this group who have voted for the death penalty for the worst most psychopathic criminals, so maybe you should ask everyone rather than just me?

But if you want my opinion (yet again), I'd reiterate my previous sentiments expressed: Having the death penalty in place for these extreme psychopaths would definitely save many innocent lives over time when you factor in some of the aforementioned costs to society in letting them remain alive as I and others have mentioned in this poll....

A few examples of those costs to society would include:

-Murderers who remain alive give media interviews (thereby influencing warped or fragile or psychotic minds in the free population to kill and leading to future victims). If anyone saw the hit movie WOLF CREEK, that was inspired by the true serial killings of Ivan Malat from the 80s and 90s in Australia. Several murderers in recent years have admitted they were inspired by Malat. Copycat-style murders are a fairly common phenomenon and convicted psychopaths giving interviews is in a way allowing them to publicize their crimes and even the enjoyment they felt to budding murderers.

-Such psychopaths also talk and behave with others in the general prison population including unstable minds of lesser criminals who will be released back into the general population one day. This would increase future victims as psychopaths are known to be very influential and master manipulators.

- Those serial killers serving Life sentences have been known to orchestrate further murders via payments or other incentives to killers/hitmen via third parties or contacts. Such collaborative murders organized from behind bars are quite common in Mafia killings, for example.

-By not putting down such serial killers, some will eventually be released back into the general population. For example, check out this article: Charles Manson follower Bruce Davis, now 72, recommended for parole after 43 years in prison http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime... Now hopefully it goes without saying that when serial murders are eventually released back into the population for supposed good behavior or being "reformed", this definitely leads to many more innocent murder victims...

So I'd reverse your question to you: Is it just to not only allow those who took multiple innocent child/adult lives to live out their days AND also to kill even more innocents either indirectly, collaboratively or directly by remaining alive?

Hard to say how many innocent murder victims worldwide NOT having a death penalty creates? Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? I'd predict millions, but it'd be impossible to assess unless you were the mind of God, so to speak.
But let's say it was mirculously only one child, I would argue that that innocent child is greater than the combined rights of all convicted/proven serial murderers who happily made their beds and decided to kill repeatedly...

So when some imply those who are for the death penalty lack compassion, this is disregarding the fact that many of those in favor of a death penalty (e.g. retired policewoman Ila who commented in this poll that she's unequivocally for the death penalty) have past present and (potential) future murder victims at the forefront of their minds...

Jessica wrote: "I am sorry for how that was presented, But SOME people here are angry when it comes to this subject. And it fills them with hate for the moment, hate for the murdered. ..."

Agree with you on the anger - you'd be psychopathic not to feel extreme anger when assessing all the murder/rape/torture victims around the world each day. It's a positive anger in that it's organically fuelled and when channeled properly it can be used for the good of society. All cops I've ever known or spoken to are extremely angry at psychopaths and I'd assume this is partly what fuels them to protect/defend/ the innocent.

However, I disagree with you on the hatred of murderers - again I think that's assuming things in others minds. I wouldn't want to assume what is in others minds either, but speaking about my own motivations and assessing what others who have commented in this poll have written, I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths. It's an intense desire to protect innocents from those who have no innocence or humanity in them...

Now speaking from my own perspective, serial killers become like inanimate beings or even inanimate objects when assessing them...Once a "person" has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have killed, raped and tortured that many men women and children they are no longer human to me as there's no sign of any humanity. So it's a bit like saying could I kill ants if killer ants were on the rampage and innocent people were being killed every day by them? Yep, no problem whatsoever! But I wouldn't hate the ants, I'd just view them as something that needs to be disposed of, sharpishly...

James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind of assuming that all victims would like to see the perpetrators killed, so I can't see how 'acting on behalf of victims' is any argument.

Also, Lance - perhaps this off tangent, but I'd be interested to know how your Christian beliefs marry up with your views on this topic.

(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)

The poll result/comments have been interesting, as I would have assumed (my own bias to one side) that the majority would be in favour of NO - but I realise this is also an English perspective. If you ran the poll here I'd imagine 90% would be against it - simply because our abolishing the death penalty is seen in the same canon of ethical progression as giving women the vote, abolishing slavery or banning illegality of homosexuality.

Why not have compassion for all? Eh?

Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary that it is because only humans have souls and conscious minds, when I asked the same question. I tried to extrapolate on my meaning at the time, but was struggling to put into words what I was thinking, so I gave up at the time.

As this is not the forum for that discussion, I will leave it at that. But it is still an idea that I don't fully "get", either.

Jessica wrote: "Erma wrote: "Jessica wrote: "I do find it interesting that the charming sociopath that was a hit man actually had nightmares over killing people. That is something to think about."

It was my understanding at the time that the nightmares came from his job, not that he wanted to kill what he would consider 'innocent people.' "

Thank you! I wasn't sure if I was over-reaching on this question, and appreciate the candid answer.

Erma wrote: "Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary that it is because only humans have souls and conscious minds, whe..."

Interesting to hear your thoughts Erma. Thanks.

Personally I believe in Thou Shalt Not Kill with regards to all creatures. So when James made his killer ant analogy, it still comes down to the same thing for me: kill in defense but not with intent.

Jessica wrote: "Harry,

Just want to say that I like your post."

Thanks Jessica.
Yours too!

When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also for the one doing the harm.

I cannot help but believe that the psychopath is suffering, perhaps not in the same way as we suffer, since we all suffer in this world, but suffering just the same. I can not imagine living a life where I killed others for pleasure or for any reason. I cannot imagine being in that person's shoes, and I don't want to know what it is like.

I feel that the Buddhist teachings that I had changed my life more than any other religious teachings I have been in. But I still love Native American spirituality best because of the simplicity of caring for others and the earth, and a simple belief in the creator.

But this does not mean that I do not understand others views on this subject. I have lived a long life, and I have been for the death penalty for most of it.

And as I was writing, I just found this:

THE HIDDEN SUFFERING OF PYSHCOPATHS: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psych...

"As psychopathic serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen expressed, violent psychopaths ultimately reach a point of no return, where they feel they have cut through the last thin connection with the normal world. Subsequently, their sadness and suffering increase, and their crimes become more and more bizarre."

Jessica wrote: "THE HIDDEN SUFFERING OF PYSHCOPATHS: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psych...

"As psychopathic serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen expressed, violent psychopaths ultimately reach a point of no return, where they feel they have cut through the last thin connection with the normal world. Subsequently, their sadness and suffering increase, and their crimes become more and more bizarre.""

Perhaps in this they are simply looking for a release from the pain they are feeling? A use of the justice system as it is to end their suffering?

Erma wrote: "Jessica wrote: "THE HIDDEN SUFFERING OF PYSHCOPATHS: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psych...

"As psychopathic serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen expressed, violent psychopaths ultima..."

You would think that if a person was suffering and wanted to die they would kill themselves if given the chance.

There seems to be a fine line. What if a person in prison would rather be dead? Who is to do this for him in a way that would not make the executioner suffer the results? How does a person feel if they even gave him the drugs? How does a person feel by watching him suffer in prison? Some are put in solitary confinement. Is that more cruel than death?

Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind of assuming that all victims..."

"Also, Lance - perhaps this off tangent, but I'd be interested to know how your Christian beliefs marry up with your views on this topic." --

I guess for me it comes down to that old Biblical refrain "an eye for an eye" Harry.

"(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)" --

Maybe it's to do with the context in which it's written. As for me personally...I have no problem eating beef, fish or foul any more than I have crushing a cockroach...or voting YES in this poll for that matter.

Hope I haven't gone further down in your estimation Harry...

Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also for the one doin..."

Is it my imagination or are we expressing and feeling more sympathy and concern for serial killers and their ilk than we are for their victims and their loved ones. Let's not go over the top in our concern for these inhumane lowlifes and at least spare a thought for the victims...

Lance Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind of assuming th..."

Thanks for the reply Lance.
Surely that eye for an eye stuff is old Biblical style, and nowt to do with the teachings of J.C... but I'll digress...

Lance Morcan wrote: "Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also ..."

I don't see that anyone's saying: have more compassion for the killers. Only that we should have equal compassion.

If I was a victim and didn't want the perpetrator killed, those killing in my name would be doing so falsely, so I really don't get this victim argument.

Lance Morcan wrote: ..Hope I haven't gone further down in your estimation Harry...
"

Nah mate. It was getting boring agreeing with you and James all the time.

I just happen to be right on this one. ;)

Lance Morcan wrote: "Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also ..."

I believe Lance that you are reading more into what I wrote than you should. I never implied that at all. It is that we need to understand that there is suffering on both sides.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also ..."

We´re not expressing more concern and sympathy for the killers. All life is precious.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also ..."

We do care about the victims, that´s just not what we´re discussing at present.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind of assuming th..."

Lance, "an eye for an eye" may be a biblical refrain, but it doesn't have much t do with the teachings of Christ. As regards crushing cockroaches, I would prefer not to crush them but simply remove them.

Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind of assuming that all victims..."

Having compassion for a psychopathic serial murderer would be wasted. Such an individual would not have the capacity to neither receive nor reciprocate such emotion. If you were to express it, they would merely use it to their advantage and it would end up having adverse effects...this is, of course, based on my opinion rather than facts. ..i haven't checked to see if there have been studies done on this.

Harry wrote: "Erma wrote: "Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary that it is because only humans have souls and conscio..."

What if the psychopath says he will kill again (and as in the YouTube video i linked to, wants to be put to death)? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... https://youtu.be/VSJZnTczYtc
How do we apply the "thou shalt not kill" commandment when we know the only way they can handle life is to satisfy their murderous compulsions?

Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also for the one doin..."

You are assuming that the mind of a psychopath is the same as that of the average human mind. ..this is a fallacy and it is impossible for us to even remotely out ourselves in their shoes. I don't believe they suffer. ..I truly believe that they are numb and don't see other people's lives as having any value.

Lisa wrote: "Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the victim, but also ..."

I must demur, Lisa. I'm sure they suffer. If they have made themselves numb in some way or other it is to suppress the suffering. No person that was not suffering would ever commit such crimes.

Iona wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Jessica wrote: "When I was at a Buddhist monastery I learned that those who are harming others are suffering or they wouldn't harm others. They taught compassion, not just for the vict..."

When there are brain abnormalities and the part of the brain that allows for humane, if you will, emotions is severed and rendered dysfunctional, it is quite possible not to suffer. ..their way of 'feeling ' is different and cannot be compared with a normal human brain. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...

Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind of assuming th..."

It's not about the effect compassion has on the perpetrator but what effect it has on us as individuals to have compassion for all life.

No different to letting go of a grudge because it causes only us harm - this is just to a greater degree.

Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Erma wrote: "Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary that it is because only humans have sou..."


We lock 'em up. Easy.


Gee, and I don't necessarily mean you Lisa, but it seems as though some in the yes camp think us in the no camp don't want justice or punishment. This isn't the case of course.

We're just saying why kill them? (I've heard no one give a good answer yet.)

Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that. That's kind o..."

I guess I am unable to comprehend the idea of having compassion for individuals who have no regards for other people's lives and murder in cold blood.

Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Erma wrote: "Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary that it is because only hu..."

We live in a world with a judicial system and killing them, in my opinion, is not only the right thing to do, but also the fair thing to do. I feel like i have expressed my reasons in my posts, but if it is still unclear, I'll be happy to write a longer and more detailed post :)

Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I don't get that...."

Sure. I mean, I do understand that.
But then most of them are that way because of their parents' behaviour, so they too were victims before they became perpetrators.

All you need is love, y'all.

Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Erma wrote: "Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary that it is b..."

I just don't get why locking up forever isn't good enough. That's what I'm feeling no one's really explained (albeit to my liking).

Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Erma wrote: "Harry wrote: "(Incidentally, why do Christians perceive Thou Shalt Not Kill as meaning only human life?)."

I was told in seminary..."


Because i don't understand how locking a person up is considered compassionate or humane.
The reasoning i have for you on this matter depends on the kind of imprisonment is in question.

Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "James Morcan wrote: I would GUESS it's probably much more about love and empathy for innocent people rather than hatred for psychopaths "

I do..."

Can't blame parents for actions carried into adulthood. ..at some point we have to take responsibility for our own actions.

Psychopaths don't want love, they want control.

For me, this is all about: how do we stop these people doing bad in our world, not: what do they deserve?
To keep society safe, we need a prison system. We don't need to kill them to keep society safe.

Harry wrote: "For me, this is all about: how do we stop these people doing bad in our world, not: what do they deserve?
To keep society safe, we need a prison system. We don't need to kill them to keep society ..."

That's the thing, Harry...i don't see them stopping unless they are put to death. Did you watch the 3min you tube clip i posted? I think what the psychopath in it said is quite a common thought process in psychopathic serial killers.

Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "For me, this is all about: how do we stop these people doing bad in our world, not: what do they deserve?
To keep society safe, we need a prison system. We don't need to kill them to..."

Like I said - lock 'em up forever. :)

Kinda interesting that nobody replied to my post 308.
Does this mean we all agree not having a death penalty will lead to more murder victims?

James Morcan wrote: "Kinda interesting that nobody replied to my post 308.
Does this mean we all agree not having a death penalty will lead to more murder victims?"

I made an attempt to disagree, but couldn't...but in a nut shell. ..isn't that why we voted yes in the first place? ...to prevent more murders?

James, in reply to message 308 - we need to change the prison system to stop the things you mention. Easy.
Why not do that rather than kill?

As you said, this ain't about the current US system, so how can we use examples that come from it?

Lisa wrote: "I made an attempt to disagree, but couldn't...but in a nut shell. ..isn't that why we voted yes in the first place? ...to prevent more murders? ..."

I actually agree we all want the exact same thing, but there are a lot of preconceived ideas about what is more loving or more spiritual etc.

I don't believe this debate is anything to do with any of the lofty things being mentioned (e.g. Buddhism, Christianity, spirituality, being more loving, being more forgiving, being American, being British etc, etc) it should just be a cold, hard logical decision that everyone (including atheists) can comprehend or debate...And that that decision should simply be this (in my opinion): Will having a death penalty in place prevent more innocent victims being brutally murdered in future?

So this way it's simply about what would be the best for society.
I believe that's why most cops, who see all the horrific things us common people usually do not, will vote in favor of the death penalty.

Harry wrote: "James, in reply to message 308 - we need to change the prison system to stop the things you mention. Easy.
Why not do that rather than kill?

As you said, this ain't about the current US system, so..."

It is based on the current and the past prison system that we can base an idea on a new prison system. We have to understand what has been working and what hasn't been working. If we don't go by those examples, then what do we go by?

James Morcan wrote: "Will having a death penalty in place prevent more innocent victims being brutally murdered in future?..."

I ask: will locking people up forever achieve the same results?

(Yes is the answer of course.)

Yes, it's about what's best for society. This is about keeping society safe. So lock them up.

Did I mention, we could lock them up?

Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "James, in reply to message 308 - we need to change the prison system to stop the things you mention. Easy.
Why not do that rather than kill?

As you said, this ain't about the current..."

Sure, I agree with what you say there Lisa.

Harry wrote: "I just don't get why locking up forever isn't good enough. That's what I'm feeling no one's really explained..."

As you've mentioned several times nobody has explained reasons why they believing just locking someone up for a "life sentence" is not good enough, I'm pasting part of my earlier post here again (not to say it's necessarily right, but to ask "why not debate these points and if you're sure they are incorrect points and that leavin them alive will not lead to more innocents killed, then why not explain?"):

Having the death penalty in place for these extreme psychopaths would definitely save many innocent lives over time when you factor in some of the aforementioned costs to society in letting them remain alive as I and others have mentioned in this poll....

A few examples of those costs to society would include:

-Murderers who remain alive give media interviews (thereby influencing warped or fragile or psychotic minds in the free population to kill and leading to future victims). If anyone saw the hit movie WOLF CREEK, that was inspired by the true serial killings of Ivan Malat from the 80s and 90s in Australia. Several murderers in recent years have admitted they were inspired by Malat. Copycat-style murders are a fairly common phenomenon and convicted psychopaths giving interviews is in a way allowing them to publicize their crimes and even the enjoyment they felt to budding murderers.

-Such psychopaths also talk and behave with others in the general prison population including unstable minds of lesser criminals who will be released back into the general population one day. This would increase future victims as psychopaths are known to be very influential and master manipulators.

- Those serial killers serving Life sentences have been known to orchestrate further murders via payments or other incentives to killers/hitmen via third parties or contacts. Such collaborative murders organized from behind bars are quite common in Mafia killings, for example.

-By not putting down such serial killers, some will eventually be released back into the general population. For example, check out this article: Charles Manson follower Bruce Davis, now 72, recommended for parole after 43 years in prison http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime... Now hopefully it goes without saying that when serial murders are eventually released back into the population for supposed good behavior or being "reformed", this definitely leads to many more innocent murder victims...

Harry wrote: "Personally I believe in Thou Shalt Not Kill with regards to all creatures. So when James made his killer ant analogy, it still comes down to the same thing for me: kill in defense but not with intent. ..."

I also mentioned serial killers are like inanimate objects, so if like Buddhists you cannot kill an ant or a microbe, then picture destroying a wardrobe or a car.

If serial killers view other human beings as mere objects, then why should we not view them in that manner and dispose of them in the same manner they dispose us?

Harry wrote: "I believe Pacifism IS right in every circumstance.
There is a massive difference between defending oneself (from an individual psychopath or an invasion of Nazis) and killing with intent.
Pacifism stands for never killing with intent, which is what the death penalty is...."

Actually, I think you're disagreeing with yourself there.
There are those who apply pacifism to war. There were contentious objectors who refused to fight against Nazis and a true pacifist would not use violence as soldiers did.

So if you think about it, you're saying there's a time for peace and non-violence, and yet you're also sayin there's a time to use violence for the good of society (e.g. killing millions to defend against the Nazis in WW2 or killing psychopaths terrorizing you)....So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're essentially saying pacifism is not right in every instance...which is exactly what I'm saying :)

Harry wrote: "The poll result/comments have been interesting, as I would have assumed (my own bias to one side) that the majority would be in favour of NO - but I realise this is also an English perspective. If you ran the poll here I'd imagine 90% would be against it - simply because our abolishing the death penalty is seen in the same canon of ethical progression as giving women the vote, abolishing slavery or banning illegality of homosexuality. ..."

I think that's partly true and partly an oversimplification, mate.
You are correct, I expect, that if this poll was just the UK, then it'd have a higher rate of those voting against the death penalty.
But I think you're generalizing America - only about 50% of US states or at least 50% of the US population have the death penalty. And quite a few major states still technically have a death penalty in place but have basically stopped using. For example, a judge recently ruled California's death penalty was unconstitutional and no prisoner has been killed in California since 2006. And California has 60 million people, almost as many as the UK.

I also think you raise an interesting point as Britain is more liberal-minded overall than the US. And mostly I'd agree with you that liberal politics have lead to a progression of things as you point out with examples like giving women the vote, abolishing slavery or banning illegality of homosexuality.

However, the question is: can liberal politics go too far?

I would say yes. And I'd also add that society tends to flip from one extreme to the other. We go from hanging people for stealing a loaf of bread, to eventually realizing such killings for minor crimes are wrong and now after a century of (very ethical) civil rights campaigners we have changed much for the better...BUT now I think it's swung too far in the other direction e.g. We try to "reform" repeat offender pedophiles who harm children again and again and again...We give rapists 2-3 year sentences and we sometimes give one-off murderers only 5-10 years...And more importantly for this poll: We argue the welfare and rights of convicted serial killers just as much (if not more in some cases...) than we focus on the past and future victims of these killers....

So I would say everything is good in balance or moderation. Politically speaking, we have seen how going too far to the Right leads to minor criminals being locked up when they don't need to be (e.g. drug addicts) or even killed unnecessarily if you go back to the Victorian era. However, I think we are now discovering how going too far to the Left (liberal) is perhaps leading to wishy-washy punishments and more and more victims as a result...Which is proving to be just as harmful to society.

Therefore, in this instance, I would argue we keep all of the ethical progressions you mention, but also not throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to US politics or those on the Right wing (who seem to understand that 99% of psychopaths can never be reformed and will always create more and more victims).

Point is, many around the world, not just in the US, are now calling for a return to harsher sentences as people are sensing the current system is allowing for psychopaths to easily and effortlessly become repeat offenders...including even serial killers who we find out that "life sentences" do not always equal life and are often released in old age as per the buddy (and fellow serial killer) of Charles Manson in that article link I gave...

p.s. Hey Harry, now that we've finally found a subject we disagree on, and one you're pretty cocky on (e.g. to quote you "I am definitely right"!!!!), I thought I'd keep this going a bit to test your peaceful Buddhist nature out and try to make you flip out and finally say "F$^# you Morcan!" :)