It should depend who the person you drove said car at was IMO

That's a quite brilliant piece of twisted logic, but it spectacularly misses the point. Prior to running into the burning building to save your ass, the rescuer might have been an axe-murderer, or a serial paedophile. the act does not redefine their entire past and future myriad of actions and choices as 'special'. To you, subjectively, and indeed objectively, they would surely be 'special', as they had no need to risk their life to save yours.

In this discussion, the NY firemen who ran up the burning Twin Towers were to a man* 'special' for doing that, clearly they knew there was a huge risk they would never make it out. Did any of them beat their wives or cheat their tax? I don't know. Is it relevant to the point? No. But it is a major point to be weighed in the balance if you were considering how special they were, overall, as a human being. * or woman

Stephen Hawking is no less special than he ever was for not having run up the Twin Towers, but even if he's sure he would have done it if he could, that belief doesn't make him objectively more special. Whereas what he has achieved in his life, and against massive odds, does.

Are you perhaps confusing the right to life with this issue? Every human has the same equal right to their life. That is the whole point of arguments against the death penalty. Myra Hindley was not a special human being, but an evil barstard who deserved to die in jail. Nelson Mandela is a special human being. As a human being he is infinitely more special than Hindley. That is so, even though they had the same equal right to life. It's their choice of what they do with it that differentiates between them.

Perhaps I was confusing it with the subject of this thread.

Instead of setting the bar for 'what and who deserves the death penalty' what are people's thoughts on judges being given the power to sentence it?

In my opinion the people who want the death sentence are making that decision on the back of a knee jerk reaction due to frustration at the cushy prisons and sentences handed out probably due to over crowded jails.

Maybe if we built a few more jails (floating prisons even) and dished out harsher sentences then maybe this question/demand on the death penalty might go away.

rlOr ...rl

Rather than niggling about who gets is the victim, I'd like to ask the OP why he wants the death penalty rather than another sentence.

Is it to protect the public from further murder? (Imprisonment has the same effect)
Is it to deter the murderer in the first place (demonstrably does not work)

I suspect it is because he sees the death penalty as punishment ... aka revenge.
And that, I'm afraid, is not a good reason ... but it's common among so-called Christians who fail to follow in the thoughts of their star philosopher.

Just out of interest...
Five US states have abolished the death penalty in the last five years. California will vote in a referendum whether to scrap it in November. Oregon's governor has called a halt to all executions.

It doesn't work. It's never worked. It can't possibly be the right thing for anyone who wishes to be described as civilised to support.

Not the whole point. My main opposition to the death penalty is the potential for miscarriages of justice.

Texas will make up any shortfalls in numbers should these two abolish it.

Perhaps. In proposing adding to the argument "the person who can't run into the burning building, because they're in a wheelchair or are 82" and posing the question "Do age or disability mean that people become less special?"
.. you were I suppose on reflection clearly talking about the death penalty.

Though I haven't worked out why you would suggest those categories of people might be in line for it.

I'm in favour of the death penalty for certain crimes in theory but in reality as soon as even one innocent person is hung it renders the whole thing unworkable.

You can argue that modern techniques such as DNA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty but that depends on a reliance on the police to be honest and trustworthy (so no evidence tampering etc) but I think the revelations about the police's conduct in the aftermath of Hillsborough shows they are anything but !

DNA doesn't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. It may work in cosmoplitan areas such as London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol or Leeds, but it doesn't work in more rural areas where the DNA spread isn't as great.

Either way, we all know that the death of 2 young female police officers was more tragic than if it had been 2 male officers

I'm assuming that's irony?

Therefore I reserve the right to call you an amoral idiot