I hear this shit all the time from Europeans. Oh your country is only 200 years old. Fucking racist, we had people here 30,000 years ago, just because they're a different colour doesn't mean it's less relevant.
And ultimately we're all 2000th generation African, so we all share a common history. It's not like humans in this part of the world just popped out of thin air 200 years ago. Your 5000 year old relics are equally my 5000 year old relics, since their connection to either you or I is so equally distant.

Security by obscurity does actually work a lot of the time. Just because it is not always effectively doesn't mean it's never effective.

But your average American is fatter and will die earlier, so it works about the same overall :)

Because most people disagree with this. You kill bacteria, and insects, maybe even small mammals, and are responsible for the deaths of many large ones through your choice of appetite, clothes or furniture. Killing is not wrong, killing is right when applied correctly. The only argument is to define the boundary between correct or not.

I had a quick read but couldn't find anywhere where it concluded it was cheaper. Trials were cheaper, and incarceration costs cheaper, I accept that, but I couldn't see the most important part where a quick execution means decades fewer incarceration costs? I also missed the part where the person by remaining alive re-offends. What is the cost of that? (not all lifers stay inside for life)
I agree we need to improve the standard for getting it right, although this seems to be a problem with the US judicial system than anywhere else.

It'd be a pretty surreal 5-7 seconds though

That's at least half the population of the known universe, so wouldn't it be more accurate so say that capital punishment is usual?

Anesthesia has to be applied an anesthetist, ie a professionally trained medical practitioner ethically bound to save lives. The Gas Chamber, Electric Chair, Firing squad etc can all be performed by a regular run of the mill prison guard with no such ethics.

If you want gritty realism, join the actual army.

I don't think so. It will never be perfect, but the balance is pretty good right now. Sure there is still govt corruption, and media still biased, but the fact that we can each insult our national leaders in a public forum without fear of reprisal is a win in my book. Historically, not a lot humans ever had that freedom.

Yes of course, that explains why the US has the lowest murder rate in the OECD. Oh wait... let's add the education system to the list of things the US fails miserably at.

No they weren't. End Users bitched and moaned about being forced to upgrade all that stuff just as they are now.

Humans evolved under total surveillance. The hunter gather tribe ate, lived and breathed in each other's pocket. If your tribe-mate farted you knew about it. Sometime during the industrial revolution, technology allowed us a form of privacy because machines gave us the freedom to no longer rely on each for survival. Now we've come full circle and we'll have to be conscious of how we behave because we'll once again be visible to the larger tribe. As long as the laws maintain a power balance between govt, people, and media, then I see no problem with this.

Actually it's both. I've seen plenty of cases first hand of bullies getting their comeuppance thanks to casual surveillance, and we've all seen cases of abuse. Like the car, it can be both a tool and weapon. It would be foolish to write off it's benefits just because of the odd car crash. As long as we manage the new era of the surveillance society, I think it can deliver a net gain.