[zeveb]

> The guy who was raping little kids in his van shouldn't serve his time in a nice hotel.

He shouldn't live, period: he should go straight from the jail where he was waiting trial, to the gallows. Prison should be for those who are bad enough to remove from society for a time, but not bad enough to execute; and since they will be returned to society, we should try to make sure that when they re-enter it they do so as productive, mentally-well members of society, rather than as beaten, brutalised future recidivists.

[gambiting]

It's a matter of personal opinion, but I don't think anyone has the right to give out a death sentence. Yes, even to a child rapist. As a society we are so rich we can easily keep those people in prison for life, and spare ourselves the moral implications of actually killing people.

[zeveb]

> As a society we are so rich we can easily keep those people in prison for life, and spare ourselves the moral implications of actually killing people.

But not the moral implications of keeping someone caged like an animal for the remainder of his life. What's worse: to die in a week, or to spend decades in prison?

[gambiting]

What's worse - finding out an innocent man spent 20 years in prison before being exonerated, or that he was killed? I know it's an extreme minority if cases - but there really is no reason to kill people. We are perfectly capable of keeping people locked for life, and that's what we should do for the worst offenders. Is it horrible? Of course. But the alternative is much worse.

[anonbanker]

and they should televise the whole thing, so that the public can get the blood they're all so clearly thirsty for.

I bet if televised, public executions would be the biggest PPV draw in Oklahoma and Kansas. It could fund schools, lower taxes, and most importantly, fund bigger gallows for executing more of the people we decide shouldn't live anymore.