Originally Posted by muttonglutton

I am for the death penalty. I believe in stern punishment.

However, in a world of imperfect information, like poker, when do you truly know when to go all in and kill the guy on death row, or when to fold. How do you know when to concede that, really, we think the guy is guilty enough to put him in jail, but not guilty enough to kill him? Then, doesn't the 'beyond a reasonable/shadow of a doubt clause come in? If you aren't sure enough to put the man on death row, how are you sure enough to commit him in the first place?

If it didn't cost time, money, space, or effort ot keep criminals in jail, then the death penalty wouldn't be an issue. Why kill them? Just throw them into the criminal box and close the lid, take them out in twenty years. But it doesn't work like that. There is money involved, and morals often take a back seat to dollar signs.

Either you have to concede a few innocent lives here and there, or a whole lot of money, time and effort into keeping these people off the streets.

In theory, I think the death penalty, like communism, is grand. Unfortunately, reality makes it suck the big one, and so we have life sentences, with chance of parole after fifteen years.