I believe that those on both sides of the death penalty debate have one thing in common. They both want the criminal to suffer the harshest consequence. There's just a small matter of reaching agreement on what exactly that is.

You dont think that death is a release from suffering? What about the terminally ill, pain ridden person who literally begs for death to end their suffering? Have you been able to square all that away yet?

Why does a convicted murderer need to be in a cell with nothing else in it? The craigs list killer found a tiny sliver of metal and managed to slash his wrists and kill himself. Surely you dont think he was choosing the path of more pain and suffering?? He took the easy way out like they all would if they were given a chance and they had the guts..

assisted Suicide I think is just fine
As for murderers, I don't want them to suffer, I don't want them to feel anything, ever again

I wouldn't want him dead. I would want to know that he'll never see sunshine again. I want him to live fear of having a huge well hung black man raping his asshole every day. I want him to be someone's bitch tossing someone's salad for the next sixty years of his life until he dies.

1. It's civilised. If you didn't get the point of Madalton's post on who does have capital punishment, then you have a problem.

2. Keeping them alive is a far worse punishment than executing them.

3. Justice isn't fair OJ would of never of got off unless he had millions. It's been proven time and time again many innocent people would not of been convicted if they had a decent defense. That's the reality.

4. Satisfying your lust for revenge is no reason to execute people.

I hope you're never dropped into that reality.

Which is why the Father isn't allowed on the jury.

This thinking has sent many a man to the gallows and has no place in a civilised society.