.I didn't consider the fact that you and others would get all upset over the use of that label. I didn't really mean it as an insult, since I am typically labelled as one
I wasn't insulted Alice. Please don't overestimate your power or prowess to affect people. Its just a debate.
Now, skipping some stuff in which you argue against someone that wasn't posting (someone accusing opponents to the death penalty for not being considerate towards the feelings of the victims or their families)...
Actually, retribution for the victims family has been mentioned a number of times in this thread and is an important issue in almost all of these for/against the death penalty debates.
Why are violence and reason opposites? The opposite of reason is unreason/irrationality. And the the opposite of being a person prepared to being violent would be to be a pacifist.
I didn't say they were opposites. In the words of Ghandi “ Violence is essentially wordless and it can begin only when thought and rational communication have broken down. Any society that is geared for violent action is by that very fact systematically unreasonable and inarticulate.” You can add satyagrahi to my label if you like, I promise I won't be insulted.
Not being from the US, I don't see how a justice system not working well and the death penalty as being necessarily linked.
Well, there is a plethora of research and academic papers on the subject. Both Tertonius and I did reference a few to back up our more educated arguments which were based on informed opinions and evidence.
Fair enough. I'd say that calling something 'uncivilized' and 'barbaric' is not a real argument, but your feelings on the matter are clear.
I would say it is as valid an argument as you wanting a criminal dead because of your own personal and highly subjective/emotional feelings and reacton after the death of a family member. I know its easy to dismiss an argument based on often what may be labelled as subjective issues (which I don't believe being *civil* is anyway completely) , but, you did exactly the same. Lets not be a hypocrite now.
So... it may be easy to correlate the two, and equate the death penalty with barbarism and injustice. But is this really the case?
Yes, it really is that simple. To introduce a lack of dental floss into the argument is just another of your ridiculous analogys.
I disagree. A lot of punishment is supposedly 'corrective', 'educative' and preventive. Some people are put away for a long time, because they are a danger to others. Some people are given a punishment in the hopes that it will steer them in the right direction. There are many considerations that play a part. The 'retributive' part is one of the more controversial ones, these days.
The 'legitimacy' behind retributive acts lies in it's proportionality
I disagree too (obviously). The retributive theory of punishment holds that punishment is justified by the moral requirement that the guilty make amends for the harm they have caused to society. It has nothing to do with proportionality. Some retributive theories hold that punishment should never be imposed to achieve a social objective (such as law-abiding behaviour in the future by the offender as you seem to think), while others allow social objectives to be pursued as secondary goals – which I would agree with - as true retribution of the kind you seem to require and support relating to proportionality, in the case of the death penalty, is purely illusory and fabricated.
Nobel Laureate Albert Camus wrote, "For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life." (Reflections on the Guillotine, in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death 1960)
We are obviously at polar opposites on this issue, and any further argument would be circular now – so, I will agree to diagree 100% without any sway on this one.