KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
In the case of people who commit crimes like rape and murder intentionally, what about the person who had their liberty STOLEN by the rapist/murderer? Either way a felony convict basically has no rights, or liberty while they're serving their sentence. Still the death penalty only should apply who present an extreme danger to others, especially with the bleeding hearts around who insist on freeing felons who are convicted of multiple murders, or rapes. It sounds callous and cold on the one hand, but on the other hand what about their victims? Also why should society pay for someone's well being, when their soul purpose is to inhabit a cell in a prison, because they're too dangerous to let out into society? It's not to die in the name of the state, it's to die because they've actively forfeit the right to live.
Though as I said before this should be saved for people who are so psychologically broken that they WILL offend again. Serial rapists and killers specifically. They're competent and otherwise sane, but they're either pathologically compelled to commit their crimes, or they just see people their playthings. It's not right for society to have to collectively pay for them to languish and it's cruel to let them languish their life away in a cell.
Well ... for starters, even prisoners deserve rights. Law should be a shield, not a sword. As they say; "An eye for an eye would only make the world half-blind." The argument could be made that the victim gains nothing by merely killing prisoners. Also, what you'll find is that it's the quality of the lawyer, not the crime, that determines the decision of death of those participants in a particularly grievous crime. So unless one is to enable mandatory death penalties, regardless of appeals or circumstantial information, then the entire thing falls apart.
( http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/2010/02/victims-families-speak-out-aga.html/ )
So basically it's the amount of money that can determine the end result. Not the actual deliberation of the nature of their crimes or the role that they played in it. There is also something to be said about how exactly it benefits a victim to have their assailant legally killed. You're assuming a subjective weight, especially given that despite how cruel you may think it is ... death is a scary thing. What is more cruel, however, is someone sitting on death row .... years on end. There is a reason why prisoners fight for a reprieve, despite knowing full well they will languish in that death row prison cell.
It is less cruel to merely have no death penalty, and the stability of internment without possibility of parole, than this act between reprieve and condemnation. And yet, most prisoners fight to have that appeal.
I also find your argument somewhat probematic. For example, I've been involuntarily detained. For mental health, specifically. I was a taxpayer ... I had my own apartment ... but because one doctor misinterpreted a psychological stressor and because I had schizophrenia, they appealed to a magistrate to issue a warrant for my arrest. Naturally losing all elements of my self-obtained livelihood. I've never been a threat to society, only a threat to myself. What is the mechanical difference between someone like me 'inflicting' upon society and an inmate? More to the point, is it
really better to just execute people who are constantly deemed unfit for basic civil liberties?
It's a bit of a stretch, but it's still in the same vein. Society deemed I was dangerous, imprisoned me, forcing me into a system where I was dependant on others of the community with no choice in the matter. I wasn't in a cell because of something I had done, but rather on the idea that I represented some hidden danger to myself. Infact, your average schizophrenia sufferer is far more likely to be a victim of violence than a perpetrator of violence. I was fortunate to rebuild my life, but I always have that threat looming over me. That I'll need to rebuild, again.
Anyways ... I still disagree with death that has to be inflicted. Especially when there is no good evidence to suggest that death penalties are somewhat cheaper, given the much longer case times, the number of appeals sought, and the protocols in place that bog down the process. And if you are seriously adjudicating MANDATORY death penalties without possibility of appeal, then no. Because there has to be utter certainty no rehabilitation is possible, and that takes time.