How many? Could you please list confirmed innocent people who have been executed?

It's generally understood that no justice system is perfect. My guess is that for every person you can find who's been executed, then later found to have been innocent, I can find someone who died after decades in prison and was later found to have been innocent. Seems neither is particularly appealing and we should do all we can to avoid them. That doesn't mean letting everyone out of prison to ensure we don't ever punish innocent persons.

If the state sanctions it, it is not - by definition - murder.

Further, the family cannot be involved since the crime is committed against society as a whole; not the family. It is society pursuing justice within the context of the trial and sentencing; not the family.

No individual should ever be in the position to make that determination. There should be an objective, fair, efficient, evidence-based system making that determination and it should be regularly reviewed and reformed as needed to ensure it's continuing to be fair and effective. What we have today isn't that and we should work hard on fixing that quickly.

They're two separate issues. Prisons should be reformed such that they provide maximum possible rehabilitation for those who can be rehabilitated (and so that no one is released until they are properly rehabilitated) and for those where rehabilitation is impossible, execution should be swift, humane, and simple.

There are, admittedly, a lot of steps to get us from where we are today in the US to where the above is possible. However, I think those steps are worth taking considering the monumental cost of crime.

That some utilize execution in improper circumstances does not negate the fact that execution is proper in others. Executing someone because they're homosexual is wrong. Executing someone who sets children on fire is appropriate; not for any reason of vengeance, but rather to ensure they cannot bring harm to anyone else ever again.

I would extend that to all murderers. Anyone who intentionally extinguishes human life without hesitation or remorse is so fundamentally broken that they should be permanently removed from society. Prison guards are people too and shouldn't have to be exposed to those kinds of threats. It's simply solved, humanely put an end to those who murder. (and before you try and go there, please do look up the definition of the word "murder". The words "execution" and "murder" are not synonymous)

Certainly not, but it is the collective opinions of individuals in a society that form its government and thus, by definition, its system of justice.

Now that simply isn't true. I stated my reasons a number of times throughout my post:

1. 1) such that there is no chance of them interacting with anyone ever again
2. 2) nor do I wish to dump resources into attempting to fix somebody who's so broken
3. 3) I merely want them removed so they're gone forever and nobody has to deal with them
4. 4) a desire to have them permanently removed from society in the hope that the rest of us civil beings can live normal, happy lives without them

I thought I was quite clear on the issue of why.

The existing system has a number of flaws which should be corrected with evidence-based reforms. We should not be treating people from different communities, races, families, or means any differently from one another. Rules of evidence should be reviewed in depth periodically (following an initial overhaul) to ensure they're based on the latest scientific understanding of what is and isn't an effective means to establish truth. The same should happen for investigative measures to ensure that fewer innocent people ever make it to a trial. Prisons should be completely reformed to rehabilitate effectively where possible and confine safely for execution where it is not possible. And all proceedings involved in executions should be overhauled and periodically reviewed to ensure that every possible effort is being made to ensure there is no chance of executing an innocent person.

That said, once the system itself is operating fairly, efficiently, and effectively to a certain degree, the delays associated with the high cost of modern execution sentences will have been reformed out of the system and the costs will decrease. Those costs may continue to be higher than keeping the individual in prison for life, but that seems a rather pointless endeavor to begin with. If the individual is such a threat that they can never be released, what is the point of having that individual alive at all? Seems as though you're merely reducing the threat they pose and forcing them on prison guards who are, themselves, law-abiding citizens who deserve protection from such threats. As such, establish guilt and execute. Threat is reduced to zero.

That's an unfair question. Let's take your question to the logical conclusion and state that we should simply release everyone in prison today, abolish the justice system, and abolish the police to ensure no innocent person is ever arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, etc. How many innocent people are we willing to confine in a cell for decades at a time?

We cannot have a perfect justice system, but we can certainly have one that's a lot better than what we have today. We should be constantly reforming and reviewing it from top to bottom, fixing perverse incentives, taking lessons from groups like the Innocence Project and applying them across the board, taking lessons from prisons that actually have success rehabilitating people, fixing our nearly non-existent mental health care system, and any number of other efforts to avoid causing harm to our own people. At the same time, we ought to recognize that some people are inherently broken. They are wired in such a way that they will always be a threat. Unless and until medical science improves to the point where we can identify and fix people like that medically, we should protect all members of our society from those individuals by simply removing them from our society.

If ending execution is that important, find a solution whereby such individuals can be safely removed from society in a way that no one who isn't like them will ever have to interact with them again and so that the threat they may pose to good and decent people is reduced to zero. Execution accomplishes those goals, but you don't like it. That's alright - the execution itself is merely an effective means to an end - just find some other means that's just as effective.

There we go. How's that look?

That's a flaw in the system which should be corrected. Obviously every reasonable effort should be made to ensure no one is executed who could possibly be innocent, but when guilt is beyond question, stop with the legal games and quickly and humanely put an end to their existence so they can no longer burden society with pain, terror, and destruction.

There's nothing wrong with removing an individual guilty of a certain level of harm from society permanently. Deterrent arguments aside, that individual will cause no further harm to society. It isn't about exacting vengeance, nor is it about righting the wrongs that person has done; it's about controlling the damage they can cause.

I do not support the death penalty nor any result handed out by the justice system when it is handed out as vengeance. What I do support is rehabilitation with amends where feasible and appropriate and removal of particularly destructive individuals from society on a permanent basis. To that end, humanely execute all murderers and others beyond redemption.

You quoted one line without the other; the other being the line in which the naivety was shown not to exist. They basically described what they'd like to see, then stated outright that it would never happen and why, and then you attacked them for being naive based on what they said they'd like to see happen.

That's rather unfair, isn't it?

How will you deal with people who rape children and murder people so they can eat them once the justice system is "abolished"?

I see what you're saying about the problems and even though I support the death penalty, I agree there are major issues that need to be resolved. I would support a science/evidence based approach to ensuring less innocent people get caught up in the system and that the system itself is an efficient and just machine treating everyone equally. Within that new, reformed system, I would like a method for permanently removing individuals who are zero net value to society. That begins with every murderer and extends outward from there.

I disagree. As a member of society, I have some say in what happens in my justice system. I wish for my justice system to permanently remove the individuals they described from society such that there is no chance of them interacting with anyone ever again. I do not believe we can, nor do I wish to dump resources into attempting to fix somebody who's so broken that they'll chop up human beings to eat them or set children on fire. I honestly don't care whether it's possible - in theory - to "fix" somebody like that. I merely want them removed so they're gone forever and nobody has to deal with them - including the prison guards.

That I'm willing to entertain methods of execution which cause those individuals no pain ought to demonstrate that I take no joy in their killings. The gut reaction seeking vengeance is to have them killed as painfully as they killed their victims. As a civil member of society, I'm content to have such persons go to sleep and die peacefully. There's no bloodlust there; merely a desire to have them permanently removed from society in the hope that the rest of us civil beings can live normal, happy lives without them.

It certainly deters that individual, doesn't it? I don't have the figures in front of me, but I should expect that the recidivism rates for those executed for their crimes to be exceedingly low.

If the legal professionals in general, and the judicial branch in particular weren't so prone to dissembling the spirit of the law with word games, there would not exist such distrust of the judicial system. It is that distrust - a result of the legal trickery allowed to infest the judicial system - which is to nobody's benefit as faith in the judicial system is a key pillar of the consent of the governed. As it crumbles, the peoples' consent comes with it. History has shown repeatedly that this is quite bad and should be reversed if possible.

Worst among the offenders driving this catastrophe are constitutional law professors and "experts". The US Constitution is quite exquisite in its simplicity; a common man with a common education can read it front to back and understand its meaning and spirit. It requires an "expert" only to pervert it into meaning what said "expert" would like it to mean; quite often the antithesis of the original and obvious, plaintext meaning.

And by the way, the kind of lawyering you pulled in your post has two effects. First, it makes people distrustful of language. Second, it makes them distrustful of the judicial system. Neither of those things is to anyone's benefit. The inevitable outcome is rather obvious with minimal extrapolation and/or a cursory understanding of history.