Quant

I don't particularly believe that his death would accomplish anything. I agree with the jurors' idea to tell Jeremy Gross to make something of the chance they gave him, and I think anyone should agree with that. I also agree that they should have given him that chance, not so much because of the difficulties he went through in life, but because there was the potential that, given the opportunity, he could do something productive with his life.

Those murderers who show no remorse, who have never shown the capability to help another person, don't display that potential, and probably could be killed with no loss to society. The conflict for me lies between my belief that even in that extreme case, a person should not be killed (not to mention that I think it's a less severe punishment); while on the other hand, assuming the appeals process could be dealt with in a fully efficient manner (ending the extra expense of executions compared to life sentences), saving society the burden of maintaining these irredeemable criminals would be a beneficial effect of the death penalty. Not an easy decision, obviously.