Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

[Xiahou]

Not in the least.

Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

[sharrukin]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

Well, first off, every right has limits. There is no such thing as an unlimited right.

The right of free speech is limited. No yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
The right to own property is limited. Eminent domain.
The right to vote is limited. No 6 year olds, or inmates allowed.
The right to the pursuit of happiness. You have to catch it first, it doesn't get handed to you.
The right to freedom of association. Terrorists not included.
The right to life. Capital punishment, the draft, robbing a bank.

There are limits on all of them.

Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?

I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?

If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?

I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.

[Xiahou]

Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?

I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?

If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?

I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.

It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.

Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.

[sharrukin]

It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.

Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.

The aim being to prevent or suppress crimes to acceptable levels. The purpose is increased safety for the community at large but not justice.

Should a man such as Adolf Eichmann or Heinrich Himmler be subject to any punishment at all? They will not ever be in a position to repeat what they have done to bring themselves to our attention. So if rehabilitation and deterrance is our sole intent then the job has been done. It would be retribution alone that would guide any action against them. If the death penalty does not deter, and if they are unlikely to repeat their crimes, then why even bother to put them in prison at all? Clearly Adolf Eichmann was less of a threat to society in the utilitarian sense than that posed by a 16 year old car thief. He was living peacefully in South America being a model citizen. Why hunt him down?

"When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn, and are eager and ready to assist him whenever he exerts himself for defence, or even for vengeance within a certain degree." Adam Smith

This is vengeance and retribution and it is why we despise the Nazi camp guard and lend our sympathy to the inmate of such places. Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore intimately connected with justice. Should we not exact retribution from those who wrong us? Should we not act as defenders for those who cannot defend themselves?

Justice makes a virtue of controlled vengeance.

[Steppe Merc]

How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special? Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.

Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.

[sharrukin]

How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special? Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.

Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.

So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

[Pindar]

"When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn, and are eager and ready to assist him whenever he exerts himself for defence, or even for vengeance within a certain degree." -Adam Smith

This is vengeance and retribution and it is why we despise the Nazi camp guard and lend our sympathy to the inmate of such places. Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore intimately connected with justice. Should we not exact retribution from those who wrong us? Should we not act as defenders for those who cannot defend themselves?

Justice makes a virtue of controlled vengeance.

Well said.

[Pindar]

You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.

Xiahou my good man, I think your passion is getting the better of you. My position is not inconsistent or logically strained in any way. I cannot say the same about the above view. It doesn't follow that a right to kill is therefore justification to kill carte blanche. In logic this fallacy is called a hasty induction or "secundum quid" In practical terms this means one does not determine a general conclusion by a particular case. The justification to kill is constrained to specific situations. For example: the military has the right to kill, but this does not mean kill anyone at anytime anywhere. Rather, the military is bound by civilian political oversight that determines the scope and parameters of military action i.e fight in Iraq, but not in Jordon. There is also an established military code of conduct that has the weight of law. This is one of the reasons Courts Marshal can occur for wrongful killing even in a war scenario. The same is the case when the state exercise its right to kill under the Criminal Code. Those executed must have met certain criteria. No one is killed for a traffic ticket or listening to Country Music (though this should be reconsidered) for example.

Now it seems you are confused by or taking issue with two basic points: state killing and rights language. Let me explain these a little. I'll start with the latter first. A "right" refers to a legal mandate, but it also has a moral element. It implies a just cause of action. I know your challenge is focused on the moral position, but we cannot totally divorce it from the legal sphere because of the political nature of the concept. Even so, when a rights claim X is made, it implies a duty by the state to insure that X is provided. An example would be the right to protection. This means the state is obligated to provide that protection. Nationally this would be the military. Domestically this would be the police. The performance of this charge also implies a moral basis. The state by providing protection is serving the good.

Now the state's right to kill (I'm now moving to the first point) also contains a moral charge. This charge may fall under the more general right to protection. In fact, it would be common to consider the one a natural consequent of the other. The right to be protected entails the states' right to kill in the furtherance of that protection. Were it not the case the nation could lose its sovereignty or heinous crime could go unchecked. This is called right piggy-backing. where one right operates in tandem with another. The right to kill does not necessarily have to depend on another duty however. The moral aspect of state killing operates independently. State killing is necessarily tied to justice. Justice at its core is an equity relation: a basic quid pro quo where what is owed must be accounted for. If this is not provided then justice is not considered served. For example: if someone steals a thing they have violated an aspect of the equity relation. If the thief were found out and the authorities decided to punish in some fashion but didn't require he give up what was taken: there remains an inequity with the object itself, an injustice. Now murder represents the complete elimination of all possibilities for the murdered. In Jewish thought their is a maxim: "He who saves a life, saves a nation" meaning the life preserved has unqualifiable potential. The taking of life for private gain in a reverse of the maxim "destroys a nation" as all potential is lost. How is equity brought to this unbalance? By the sacrifice of the one who took all that the murdered had. Life in prison, regardless of its inhumane aspect, cannot meet or fill the void created by the guilty. Infinite loss must be met with infinite sacrifice. The state under whose auspices justice is decided is uniquely placed to administer this verdict.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou my good man, I think your passion is getting the better of you. My position is not inconsistent or logically strained in any way. I cannot say the same about the above view. It doesn't follow that a right to kill is therefore justification to kill carte blanche. In logic this fallacy is called a hasty induction or "secundum quid" In practical terms this means one does not determine a general conclusion by a particular case. The justification to kill is constrained to specific situations. For example: the military has the right to kill, but this does not mean kill anyone at anytime anywhere. Rather, the military is bound by civilian political oversight that determines the scope and parameters of military action i.e fight in Iraq, but not in Jordon. There is also an established military code of conduct that has the weight of law. This is one of the reasons Courts Marshal can occur for wrongful killing even in a war scenario. The same is the case when the state exercise its right to kill under the Criminal Code. Those executed must have met certain criteria. No one is killed for a traffic ticket or listening to Country Music (though this should be reconsidered) for example.

So what are you trying to prove with all of this? Like I said, it's irrelevant to the debate. The state can kill based on rules it creates- I thought we were all in agreement on that. The state says abortion if fine, it also says the the death penalty is fine- we're under no obligation to agree with either just because the state can perform both. People can ever disagree with war, but I find that argument flawed on self-defense grounds. In capital punishment, there is no threat and there is no tangible benefit.

In the same fashion that prisons could be made cheaper by cutting back cable, Executions could be made cheaper by using some rope and a scaffold. Right now we use expensive chemicals, or elaborate little gas rooms, or an electric chair. Silly, really.

You're totally ignoring what I said. The actual methods of death are insignificant in terms of costs.

Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.

1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.

And yet, they don't have to kill you for speeding for it to have a deterrent effect. Criteria 1 and 3 are both fullfilled by life imprisonment, in fact, according to Pindar, life imprisonment is torture and worse than death- so it's deterrent effect should be greater on those grounds. I think 2 must be where everyone isn't seeing eye to(for?) eye. Compensation, where possible, is well and fine. Someone steals your tv, the police catch him, you should be compensated for it. However, there is no compensation for having a loved one murdered. The death of the murderer does not bring anyone back- all if does is provide for vengeance. My position is consistent in that killing people who are not a threat, is best avoided.

[Xiahou]

Alright, so you admit that they are henous individuals not fit to come back into society. Why make society pay extravegant sums to keep them alive then? Is that not adding insult to injury?

Yes, Execution can be expensive, but you are paying for the elimination of a criminal, not the sustainment of one.

Both options are currently very expensive. To make executions cheaper, you would need to cut down on the amount of appeals- almost invariably leading to more innocents being wrongfully executed. Prisons could easily be made cheaper, by making them less like country clubs and more like proper prisons.

[Voigtkampf]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

Your logic is flawed. I have both legal and moral right to kill someone in defense who is trying to murder me for the content of my wallet. That doesn’t mean I have the right to kill anyone arbitrarily. Same applies to the state.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone.

Actually, you own position is absurd. The state derives its right to kill as punishment for the criminals or in war from many legal, ethical and moral sources, the greatest of them being the society itself that needs to be protected from its foes, internal and external. Its “right” to arbitrarily kill without any constrain would be derived solely from its power to do so, unlike the prior example. There is no logical conclusion that “right to kill” equals “right to kill arbitrarily”. Please refer back to my first example above.

If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.

That is, with all due respect, plain wrong. There is no such thing as an “unlimited” right. All of our rights have boundaries. One of the most famous law sayings about rights goes “My rights end where the nose of another person begins.” I have right to protect my property. I don’t have a right to shoot someone down who just might happen to try and steal/damage my property. I believe other similar examples have been named, no need to elaborate on this anymore.

As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing.

Then again, your logic has made place to emotions.

It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

Again, not true.

Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.

1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.

There are more, but these are nicely rounded up and are in every fundamental law book there is.

[Steppe Merc]

So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

Assassination is different from execution.

[sharrukin]

Quote:
So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

Assassination is different from execution.

Yes, they are different but in this case the principal remains the same.
In this particular case it is state sanctioned execution in the furtherance of justice.
Would it be morally wrong to execute Adolf Hitler?

How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special?

Because thats the deal the state makes when it takes away the right of blood feud.
I do not have the right of private vengeance, because the state promises to protect and defend me and my family, and to see that justice is carried out for any wrong done to them.

Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.

So it would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in Rwanda to save those people being massacred?
It would be morally wrong for us to intervene to save a planload of hijacked Brazilians being held hostage in Mexico by terrorists? Not our problem, and we are not being directly threatened.
It would also be morally wrong for you to walk across the street and save your neighbours life?
Don't you believe we have a moral duty to act in the defence of others?

Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.

Yes, there is a difference!
The history of prison systems suggests there will be many escapes and mistakes made that result in innocent people being killed. Do you seriously believe that a 100 people should die by the hand of these men, when we could prevent those deaths. We might make a mistake and execute an innocent man so we will let a 100 innocents die instead? What the hell kind of logic is that? Who are we protecting here? Our own sensibilities that shrink away at the idea of the calm and deliberate taking of a human life? That is pure selfishness.

It has been said that it is "Better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man hang." Better for who? For the victims of those hundred guilty who are let loose? We are talking about the death penalty so these are not people who threw a rock through someones window. Will the victims of those guilty thank you for your delicacy? Will justice be held in greater respect as the murderers and rapists take victim after victim?

How would this be better for everyone?

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, they are different but in this case the principal remains the same.
In this particular case it is state sanctioned execution in the furtherance of justice.
Would it be morally wrong to execute Adolf Hitler?

If he was arrested, he should have been imprisoned until he dies under very high security.

So it would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in Rwanda to save those people being massacred?
It would be morally wrong for us to intervene to save a planload of hijacked Brazilians being held hostage in Mexico by terrorists? Not our problem, and we are not being directly threatened.
It would also be morally wrong for you to walk across the street and save your neighbours life?
Don't you believe we have a moral duty to act in the defence of others?

Yes. But execution of criminals is not defence, it's vengance. Of course there is an obligation to help the people of Rwanada, captives or your neighbor. It is totally different from executing someone who is a captive than saving people's lives from dangerous people. When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat.

Yes, there is a difference!
The history of prison systems suggests there will be many escapes and mistakes made that result in innocent people being killed. Do you seriously believe that a 100 people should die by the hand of these men, when we could prevent those deaths. We might make a mistake and execute an innocent man so we will let a 100 innocents die instead? What the hell kind of logic is that? Who are we protecting here? Our own sensibilities that shrink away at the idea of the calm and deliberate taking of a human life? That is pure selfishness.

It has been said that it is "Better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man hang." Better for who? For the victims of those hundred guilty who are let loose? We are talking about the death penalty so these are not people who threw a rock through someones window. Will the victims of those guilty thank you for your delicacy? Will justice be held in greater respect as the murderers and rapists take victim after victim?

How would this be better for everyone?

A criminal escaping is preventable. If a criminal escapes, then it is the fault of the failure of the prison. However, the actions of the criminal is his fault.
On the other hand, when the government executes an evil person, that is murder, and is directly the fault of the government, and is far more preventable than the escape of a criminal,
In addition, a criminal can escape while awaiting to be executed, or if they do not have the death sentence, or even while awaiting trial. Following your logic, is it not easier to kill all people who would end up in jail, because they might escape and might end up harming others?

[sharrukin]

If he was arrested, he should have been imprisoned until he dies under very high security.

That simply isn't justice!

Yes. But execution of criminals is not defence, it's vengance. Of course there is an obligation to help the people of Rwanada, captives or your neighbor. It is totally different from executing someone who is a captive than saving people's lives from dangerous people. When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat.

You are partly right because Retribution is part and parcel of justice. Not vengeance, but retribution.

The evidence as to how much of a threat they pose, suggests otherwise.

“Under the Massachusetts concept of repair rather than revenge, no person is believed beyond redemption, not even a rapist or a killer.” That’s why, despite “the fact that 85 percent of the DOC inmate population has a present or past violent criminal history,” 28 percent of that population had participated in the furlough program as of January 1987. Since the program’s inception in 1972, 121,713 furloughs had been granted to 10,835 Massachusetts inmates; 5,554 of those unescorted leaves were taken by first-degree murderers, supposedly serving “life without parole” sentences.

Massachusetts officials proclaimed a furlough “escape rate” of only 0.5 percent.
This is calculated by dividing the 428 escapees by the 121,713 furloughs granted from 1972 through 1987. However, those furloughs were granted repeatedly to only 10,835 inmates. Dividing 428 by that number reveals an actual escape rate of one out of every 23 participants!

Peter J. Limone sentenced to “life without parole” for a contract murder was one of those, and he got 160 furloughs and used them to manage a local loan-shark operation.

Kenneth McDuff got 'life without parole'
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plai...-p/mcduff.html

Kenneth D. Williams got 'life without parole' for the murder of a university cheerleader.
He escaped on Oct. 3, 1999, while serving that sentence at the Cummins Unit of the state prison system in Lincoln County, Ark. After 57-year-old farmer Cecil Boren was slain at his home near the prison, Williams fled to Missouri in Boren's truck. He was captured near Urbana after an accident that killed Culligan delivery driver Michael Greenwood, 24, of Springfield, Mo. Williams was convicted for Boren's slaying and sentenced to death. If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.

Dawud Mu’Min got 48 years for the 1973 murder of a cab driver.
He escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery and got $4.00.

William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla. prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.

Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Tex. last December 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse.

After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper. The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another carjacked van.

James Robert Thomas who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.

Tracy Lynn Harris received life without parole on the felony murder charge and a 20-year sentence on the rape charge.
Madelyn Ruth Bomar, is the 81-year-old woman whom Harris was convicted of murdering and raping in 1998,
http://www.azcorrections.gov/News/20...r_escapes.html

Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden, and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala. on January 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980.

The number of murderers who escaped the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, was 35 (all males). That's one state, and not a big one.

It is claimed that 23 (12 of whom actually have substantial evidence of guilt) innocents have been mistakenly executed this century and it is said that 77 persons have been released from death row because they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been condemned to death. Some of these are in fact known to be guilty and in at least 29 cases it is unknown as to whether they are or are not.

Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988).

"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives."

"The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision".

The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in the U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997).

"When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat."

A criminal escaping is preventable. If a criminal escapes, then it is the fault of the failure of the prison. However, the actions of the criminal is his fault.

The courts exist for the sole purpose of serving the people and for no other reason.

Its not your fault! Not your problem?
I mean, if the actions of criminals are not the problem of the government then why bother with a criminal justice system at all?

Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility? So the government doing nothing while a business pours toxic waste into the water supply it isn't the governments problem? They bear no responsibility for a failure to protect?

So the state has no duty to protect its own citizens at all? The entire justice system is based on the idea that the state has a positive duty to prevent its citizens and that private acts of vengeance are not allowed and that the state shall administer justice. This is an abdication of such responsibility.

It is the duty of the State to protect fundamental rights of the citizens as well as the right to property. If they fail in this then we should replace them with a judiciary that will. The judicial system is being derelict in its duty to protect the public from such people.

On the other hand, when the government executes an evil person, that is murder, and is directly the fault of the government, and is far more preventable than the escape of a criminal,
In addition, a criminal can escape while awaiting to be executed, or if they do not have the death sentence, or even while awaiting trial.

So a lawful execution and murder are the same thing?
What about kidnapping and imprisonment? Same thing? No? Well why not?
So rape and sex are the same thing? Right?
Two acts which have the same ending are NOT morally the same.

Your logic only works if you believe that the life of a criminal is of equal value to someone who isn't! They are not of equal value. The life of a rapist is NOT of equal value to the woman he is raping!

By executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again. Its that simple. The examples above regarding those who have escaped to murder again demonstrate that keeping them alive guarantees nothing. Even if the mythical LWOP (life without parole) actually existed, which it does not.

If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, we are saving many more lives. If the death penalty IS NOT a deterrent and we execute we are fewer saving innocent lives well. If we fail to execute we are sacrificing innocent lives.

Following your logic, is it not easier to kill all people who would end up in jail, because they might escape and might end up harming others?

No, because that would not be justice! Someone who steals should be given justice, and sentence of death would not be just, given the offence. That they should be held accountable for what they do? Yes! The ones we are discussing, are not those who might do something in the future, but rather those who have already been tried and convicted of what they have done in the past. The question is, should we give them another chance to rape and murder? I fail to see any reason that we should!