Rob Michael makes some important and thought-provoking points. I'd like to address one in particular: that the death penalty is immoral if no purpose is served other than revenge, and that prevention of the infringement of the rights of others is insufficient by itself, since life imprisonment can handle that.

Good as far as it goes. But there are circumstances where life imprisonment is simply not good enough. To cite a case that's surely been brought up on this site before, consider life imprisonment for convicted terrorists.

Historically speaking, terrorists under a life sentence typically do not serve out their terms; they are traded, as part of "negotiation" or under the threat of more terror. (Right now, for example, Palestinian terrorists, with blood on their hands, are being released from Israeli prisons -- in part because the United States insisted on it, as a "good-will gesture".)

It hardly needs to be said that this gives no incentive for convicted terrorists to fear a life sentence. And released terrorists have gone on to commit more crimes, over and over again.

In other words, a strong case can be made for the execution of convicted terrorists with blood on their hands. (Yes, in some cases, intelligence benefits may be gained from them; they certainly will share no secrets once they are dead. But they will likewise share no secrets if they are released... and releasing them has its own dangers.)

I am not trying to make the case for a death penalty, for I am by no means certain I have made up my own mind on the subject. I do wish to point out other possibilities than those mentioned so far in this forum.

One other thought. It has long been my view that, by violating the rules of civilized conduct in a society, a criminal to some degree is relieved of the privileges of that society. (For example, a consistent traffic offender may have his license revoked, and have to do without a luxury his fellows take for granted. A more serious offense might be punishable by imprisonment; the criminal's right to freedom is temporarily revoked.)

A more serious punishment (one rarely used in the West anymore) would be eviction -- revokation of one's citizenship, and forcible relocation outside the nation's borders. (Perhaps one reason this is no longer used much is the question of where to send them. Once it could safely be assumed that territory outside one's own borders was lawless no-man's-land; this is no longer true, and forcing one's own malcontents on others, friend or foe, has consequences.)

The pattern is simple: by violating the rules that hold our society together, one has given up claim to enjoying the privileges of that society. Ideally, such privileges should be withheld in proportion to the crime that was committed; more serious crimes would result in fewer rights held by the criminal.

Apply this to the death penalty. Under what circumstances would a criminal have violated the rules of civilized society to such a degree that, not simply his liberty, but his life, becomes forfeit? What crimes would justify such a response? And if you believe that NO crimes warrant that response, why not?

respectfully yours,
Daniel in Medford