I had a friend that used to do science demonstrations at the state prison which was about 12 miles away. One of the demonstrations was with a Van de Graaf generator, creating large sparks all over the place and generally creating a good show. Afterwards, one of the cons asked him if he could fix the chair, meaning cancel the electric chair.

Seems to me that execution was definitely a deterrent in his case. The problem with deterrence estimates is they resemble latent demand in computers. You don’t really know unless you let it happen.

Well, my primary objection to capital punishment is a sense that it is wrong to kill a powerless captive, though I also agree that the possibility of executing the innocent is equally problematic. I have no qualms whatsoever about killing someone to prevent him from killing others, and if the guys you refer to are still a mortal threat even while imprisoned, then my objection is knocked aside, and killing them is arguably justified (although I suppose they could be isolated, too).

There are some people who are simply so vicious and unrepentant that it becomes difficult to see any clear moral objection to simply getting rid of them.

What about psychopaths who are congenitally unable to make normal moral judgments? They are as dangerous as it is possible for a human being to be, but arguably through no fault of their own.

These issues of responsibility and guilt are not simple.

The people in the gang are serving life without parole, and the only leverage the state has with them is the possibility of capital punishment. In this limited circumstance, I think that capital punishment is morally justifiable.

Well, as I said, I have been back and forth myself on the capital-punishment question, and am against it at this point, but not by virtue of any knock-down argument. It just seems wrong spiritually to me; it feels as if we damage ourselves somehow by killing a helpless prisoner.

The question of deterrence is an interesting and complex one. Two points: one, that I think most murders are committed in hot blood, and I wonder whether rational considerations of deterrence are a factor in such circumstances; two, that we must weigh any alleged deterrent effect (and I think that is a rather contentious empirical matter) against what we are willing to have the state do in our name. If, say, gruesome torture were an effective deterrent against embezzlement, would we want to employ it? For some, and I am one of them, killing a powerless captive is somewhat repellent.

That said, I agree that there are acts for which one forfeits one’s right to live in society.

Anyway, the point of this post was simply to point out that if we want to kill people without suffering, there are simple ways to do so, and all this fussing at the Supreme Court is just a waste of time and taxpayer’s money.

At the time the constitution was written hanging and firing squads were the common ways of execution. They probably would have thought that beheading, a la the guillotine was cruel and unusual, or perhaps the execution in the “Count of Monte Cristo”.

Oh yes, I do believe in the death penalty, for several reasons:
1. deterrence, which studies show it does
2. justice, no respect for human life then forfeit yours
3. throwing out the garbage.