ALL HAIL CAPITALISM

[NoMoreFaith]

But know that it is hypocritical on two painfully obvious levels.
1. You (using "you" in a general sense) have a problem with executing a man who MIGHT be innocent, but yet you have no problem with ruining his life by letting him agonize in prison for an entire lifetime. Where's your bleeding heart then? You know where it is? It's safely in your home because you don't want to admit what the rest of us already know. That man might be guilty as shit and you simply cannot risk letting him out to endanger your family.

If we take the appeal to emotion out of this argument, it is clearly evident by the opinions stated about miscarriage of justice is that the main concern is based upon the idea of miscarriage of justice. The basis of the argument is upon the pain and suffering to the occasional innocent. However, it is curious however, that in states where capital punishment is observed, very few would chooses death over life imprisonment if life imprisonment was in any way, shape, or form, equivalent suffering to execution.
You are also ignoring the concept of error rectification. You can free and compensate an innocent man, yet you cannot unexecute him.

Clearly the idea that the occasional innocent man in jail is therefore preferable in a faulty system, than execution. Equating that we are ignorant of those innocent in jail is a straw man construction which seems to equate that the natural progression of those opposed to the death penalty is that we shouldn't punish anyone in case they are innocent.

This is clearly a heated issue for you on this controversial issue but this first point is a non-argument, and not a hypocritical position at all.

2. Time after time when put to task, you will admit that if it was your mother or child who was violently murdered you'd be more than willing to take that man's life from him because it is justified and the right choice to safeguard the rest of the civilized world.

I would argue that if your mother or child was violently murdered, the consideration of justification and protection of society is not what you are thinking about!

The urge for retribution is strong in our psyche, however, it remains an irrational response to the issue, an appeal to the savage that resides in us all, not a rational one as you argue.

Do I want innocent men to die? Of course not, I don't even want all criminals to die, but the bleeding heart will change his tune real fuckin quick when it's his loved one who has to forfeit his or her life because a violent predator was released after doing his time.

As discussed above, this doesn't make it the rational response. Are you really proposing that when you are wronged, your instinctual reaction is the obvious and natural moral good? I doubt that you are.. in which case.. what is your argument?

Meanwhile, your kindness to these few "innocent" men allows them to suffer in prison for decades if not a lifetime.

I've made my case of refutation to this in your first point. Repeating it doesn't make it correct. Our kindness, amongst the points raised earlier, does however, allows the potential by kindness of rectifying errors in justice. You cannot unexecute someone.

I see no redeeming notion to your side of the argument. It's political correctness meets self-righteous hypocrisy ... in my ever-so-humble opinion.

Likewise, your arguments lack depth on the issue, and consist of constant appeals to emotion, and alleged hypocrisy which is not evident.

If we're discussing the destruction of a human life, the only way to approach it is from a rational point of view, rather than the emotive ones you portray here.

The emotional basis of revenge (and that is all the meek word of retribution means) is not sufficient to support the construction of state administered execution.
To answer your charge of self-righteous I plead guilty, your honor, in that I believe our laws and criminal justice system should demonstrate a respect for life and based upon the highest moral principles. In that the argument for "righteousness" is true. We may debate the fact the current system in whichever country fails to achieve that standard, in fact I think we'd agree its not even open to debate. However it remains "self-righteous" because most forms of moral philosophy would lead you to this proposition instead of Revenge™.

Even if we ignore the suffering imposed upon victims and even the perpetrators own family in the lead up to an execution, any system designed to murder would be subject to a process that would inevitably lead not to the implementation of "eye for an eye" justice, against the worst perpetrators, but rather implementation of the death penalty against those who have the most limited resources available to defend themselves.

Factually put, the execution of the innocent by the state is the most grievous "sin" that it can perpetrate. The argument of "acceptable losses" does not apply to revenge killings, and barely even applicable to the concept of deterrance (even if you managed to prove that).

So, in response, I myself, find no redeeming quality to your argument.