Another appropriate analogy would be the loss of innocent lives in times of war or combat. At much as governments may try to reduce collateral damage to bystanders, the loss of innocent lives in these circumsntances is inevitable. For the ultimate example in this regard, see, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is certainly carried out by governments and, in America, we are the government. Sometimes the loss of innocent lives may, unfortunately, be required to achieve a greater good. In regard to the death penalty in this country, there are several contemporary published studies which suggest that the death penalty does, in fact, deter other murders. If that's the case, wouldn't it be equally tragic to tolerate the loss of innocent victims' lives by not having the death penalty?

The other thing that also bothers me about people who oppose the death penalty is how frequently these same people seem to have no problem with abortion on demand. How hypocritical.

I can understand (and really do respect) people who are just morally opposed to killing under any circumstance and have the integrity to admit it. They are entitled to their beliefs. But these people who play these silly little games by lying and distorting the truth in regard to individual death row offenders really rub me the wrong way. It's almost as if they view convicted capital murderers as "political prisoners" in some respect. They believe that the end, to-wit: sparing their lives, more than justifies any means. That's some pretty warped thinking if you ask me.

First, I reject any analogy that deals with people voluntarily putting themselves in situations in which death may result. That includes your example - when I join the military, I understand that I very well may be deployed to fight in a war. Soldiers are CHOOSING to put their lives on the line for others. No innocent person on death row chose to be there and be put to death so that it may deter murderers from killing.
Any analogy that has people voluntarily do things (join army, drive a car) simply do not work.

The other thing you say is basically: It's ok for the government to kill an innocent person to save other innocent people. What? So the government kills 5 and that saves 10. But actually haven't you just upped the total of innocent people killed to 15?

I believe the analogy was refering to collateral victims of war, like children, etc. not soldiers.

I really do try not to get involved in stuff like this, because there's no point--the facts just don't matter to someone who's already made up his mind as to what the "truth" is. But LawAg, your argument here really is a bit over the top.

First, LH was not addressing deaths of military personnel who volunatarily signed up for duty--the analogy very clearly stated that the topic was the deaths of innocent bystanders during war, such as the civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, where on earth are you getting that 15 innocent people end up "killed" in what you're saying here:

"It's ok for the government to kill an innocent person to save other innocent people. What? So the government kills 5 and that saves 10. But actually haven't you just upped the total of innocent people killed to 15?"

Whaaat?! OK, even if you could somehow produce evidence that 5 persons who were executed were in fact ACTUALLY INNOCENT (if so, please produce that evidence--a lot of people would be very interested in seeing it), the most I can see coming up with as a total of innocent dead folks is 10. Unless, I suppose, the uncommitted capital murder offense for each of those executed happened to be a double homicide--but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant. Check your math.