>> All I am saying is that it hasn’t strengthened your argument much.

All you can say is, this post did not strengthen my argument – in your mind. Since you don’t know what the other readers think I’ll wait for your comments on the last post in this series, but by the same token, it will require strong arguments from your side to convince me that I’m wrong

Perhaps your expectations prevent you from seeing what this post set out to do. Extreme pole positions in most issues make no sense, so this post states the conditions where I support the death penalty. It does so by slicing the problem & paring it to the bone. Common Objections & Misconceptions about the death penalty are handled. The law is all about fine dissection, so the case law has been laid out & reviewed for that express purpose.

In the end, what remains is the stark question: If we don’t kill 1st time offenders, if we only kill serial killers, if we don’t kill the mentally ill or the minors – Do you support or oppose the death penalty?

Since all the covers are blown, people who oppose the death penalty can’t hide behind misconceptions. They have to answer this or state that they are opposed to the death penalty on moral/ethical grounds (or something similar). It forces people to think about their position clearly. I respect well thought out positions, whether I agree with it or not.

If your opposition is purely on moral/ethical grounds – I don’t think its a strong enough argument to abandon my position. But, I respect that sentiment.

We don’t need anything new to say that the emperor has no clothes on. We just need an uncluttered world-view. The history of jurisprudence has been analyzed to show that revenge is a strong need. People have a tendency to make light of it & I think that’s a grave error. After all, we’re Homo sapiens, a species from the Animal Kingdom.

I am trying hard to convince myself of why it might be needed. That would challenge my instincts and reasons, and if I am able to pose a reasonable wall to your arguments – that would further strengthen my conviction. After part 2, I did not find much value or stron reasoning being added to part 1. You state examples and I get the gravity of each situation, the import of it. All I am saying is that it hasn’t strengthened your argument much. You aren’t telling me anything novel, barring the unfortunate incidents you quote. I am absolutely amazed by the kind of research you are putting in, I really am.

Maybe, this was a classic case of misplaced expectations. I expected, I think, something else. Something more, with due credits, insightful.

And – yes, I think I underestimate the need for revenge. I am not sure if this estimation is based on lack of experience, first hand or otherwise. I have never felt the need for revenge, in any measure. I haven’t ever had a headache too. But that does not mean heads don’t ache. Neither does it mean that it ain’t a big deal. I understand it. I acknowledge the ‘need for revenge’. Not agree, merely acknowledge.

And, I am only done with your post 3 – and I am still looking for THAT compelling reason which would convince me against my thoughts.

>> Part 2 hasn’t really strengthened your argument much

Perhaps you underestimate the need for revenge. And I’m not sure you understand the intent of this post. The goal is to finely dissect how the death penalty is awarded, who gets it & who doesn’t – to show that there are many clauses governing the death penalty already.

Series posts are like stories. The goal of multiple parts isn’t to ram the argument multiple times Every part reveals 1 side of the tale & develops it.

I have to make this very clear: Please use polite language. You cannot disrespect authors, other readers & commenters, however much you may disagree with their opinion. This will not be tolerated in this blog. Civility should be maintained & hurtful words like “silly, worthess, jackass” etc will not be allowed in sastwingees.

While I’m glad you agree with my position, you are jumping into conclusions about what these people have said. I think some wonderful points have been made.

A – The difference between Legally Insane & Medically Unstable;
B – Is criminal behavior the result of brain dysfunction;
C – The society is largely responsible for creating criminals;
D – Can the victim’s family request for a lesser punishment?;
E – Isn’t the society impacted by murders too?
F – Imprisonment these days can be really hard.

Excellent perspectives, all of them. These people have not only understood the post, but in the true tradition of debates, presenting another point of view, questioning my premises & finely dissecting my stance thereby questioning my limits.