As regards the question of whether capital punishment is morally justified, that is a non sequitur.

...unless "inconvenience" is a justification for the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings.

Yeah. But, but. the bible says.

Yes they are, because you are missing the point of execution.
It has nothing to do with revenge, payback, even the score or balancing the scale.

When the courts have determined that a person is not, and will not, be allowed back into society because they pose a danger to the population, then they are separated from society permanently. Murdering someone is only one of the reasons to be found a danger to society.

What point would there be to run the risk, or the expense, of keeping this person in prison? They will never be an asset, always a liability.
That was their choice, when they found they couldn't be compatible where they were, they chose to become a problem rather than finding some place they could be compatible.
Discarding liabilities is good practice.

The courts are not 100% perfect, so some percentage of the people we execute will be innocent.

Simple question: what do we gain to justify the death of those innocents? What is "worth" an innocent death?

Does it really make that much difference to them to be in maximum security?
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?

Poor fella, should have had 20 false starts and each time told him, "fake!", "Ok, not really, we are going to kill you", "fake!", "well not this time." "Fake!"

Over and over till you spring it on him.

Mailer, Executioner's Song...

A little long, but a WONDERFUL book.

Funny, as always, two different things and neither of them matter any more than what Sponge Bob says.

These questions appear to deviate from the stated goal of separating them from society, and enter the realm of execution as punishment.

I don't know what their preference would be, however I do know that if we choose to execute individuals based on the outcome of a system that isn't 100% infallible, then there will be some percentage of innocent people wrongly executed by the state, with our consent. Can you disagree?

Either we can ignore that reality, or we can state that it is acceptable as a trade-off for something. What that "something" is is what I am asking you.

What is the price of one innocent human life? What can we get in return for knowingly executing an anonymous human being, that will make it okay?

You must know the answer, since you support doing so.

Justice is not vengeance. Vengeance is not justice.

Oh, and the ones that asked to be killed would be requesting a "suicide by state" - a variation of "suicide by cop" that differs by being completely avoidable (not a split-second reaction). It really has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate, unless we are discussing killing as punishment.

Of course it does. You said you don't want executions because we might fry an innocent person, if I understand your position.

So, I asked about situation where making a mistake is not an issue. If you still don't want to execute, even though he requested it, then your argument is not the accidental frying an innocent. It's personal belief, moral position, whatever, it's how you feel.

Not at all, just a more practical way than locking them up with the related hassles for the next 40/50/60 years. Nothing to do with being punitive.There's no perfect system. How many people did your hospital kill last year? Did the hospital close because they might kill someone? At least stop all elective procedures. Should we replace all stairs with ramps so those thousands of people don't die? Damn near anything we do, including getting out of bed is statistically more dangerous, than the risk of being falsely executed.

Remember the alternative is not fields of clover and bucolic afternoons, it's being Big Bubba's bitch for the rest of their life.

Hospitals serve a purpose in society, but carry risks as well. I'm convinced that by default we should have hospitals despite the risks. I'm not convinced that by default, we should execute criminals. I think the default is not killing people, unless a reasonable justification can be supplied. I'm still waiting to hear that justification.

The specific reason I said that your questions appear punitive in nature is that you were asking about the criminals preference, IE which would they prefer: death or jail. That is not a question about what serves society, it's a question about what punishes the criminal more harshly. Do you understand how I might get that impression?

I ask again: is "convenience" a reason for state-sanctioned executions, even knowing that innocents might die with your consent?

I disagree. You asked this (a "GOTCHA" hypothetical):

Your scenario, applied to reality, necessitates a system where the state has the power to issue state-assisted suicides. We aren't debating assisted suicide, we're debating capital punishment.

The criminals wish to be executed (or not) does not factor into capital punishment.

And, to be specific, a "confession/request-to-die" does not create a situation where all doubt is removed.

This hypothetical creates a scenario that is exponentially more complex, when you apply it to reality.

Wrong. My position is based in IRON-CLAD LOGIC. I repeat:

With a .000~01 percent chance that an innocent person is wrongly executed, we are condoning the execution of innocent persons .000~01 percent of the time.

I know that the system isn't infallible, and I don't support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent persons; therefore, by a series of connected, logical points, I cannot support the death penalty.

Either you disagree that the system is imperfect, or you think that innocent deaths are acceptable. Those are the only options.

No it is not.