You mean the crimes for which it is reserved in the USA? I would assume so. I don't understand how China metes out the death penalty for financial crimes like fraud and bribery, or how Iran decides to execute an underage girl for being brutally assaulted. Even in the USA, each state has different lists of offenses that could potentially land a person on death row: some states have none, most have it only for aggravated murder (although what constitutes aggravation differs from state to state), and in Florida and Missouri - a person convicted of drug trafficking can be (but never has, as far as I am aware) be sentenced to death. Where I live (VT), the death penalty has been abolished for murder, but there is still an old law (although very much applicable if the state desired to use it) allowing death penalty for treason against the state of Vermont (treason against the USA is a federal offense, and thus falls outside of the state's jurisdiction anyway). So... your answer is extremely complicated. Is the premeditated abduction, torture and murder of someone in Maine less serious than doing the same in Georgia? If so, why?!

My answer was simple your nit picking and trying to show everyone how smart you are is what made it 'extremely complicated'. The laws as they are are what should be enforced. Nothing could be simpler.

I disagree. Every place that has the death penalty has different circumstances where it is and is not allowed, which is directly relevant to the way the original question was worded. If taken from a moral perspective, the law in Georgia and the law in Maine are completely different from one another. So which of the two is closer to the correct moral stance?

That's the purpose of there being state governments to reflect the opinion of the people in that state, culture, or governance. Its not my job or even any of my business what someone else thinks is moral. I live here and this is where I should have an opinion in the making of the laws. That's why I also think if you don't like the laws where you are you should move to where they are what you want. No one should force their opinions of what is moral on anyone else. Not everyone has the same values. So you congregate with those that agree with the way you want to be governed. Is that more clear to you? Do you now understand my answer? Or do you need more clarification?

To answer your question the laws in Main are closer to the correct moral stance for the people of Maine and the laws in Georgia are closer to the correct moral stance for the people of Georgia. Do you understand my answer now?

To me, the state has proven over and over that it cannot be trusted to handle executions, and the American criminal justice system is so heavily corrupted that lengthy criminal sentence is more an indicator of poverty than of criminal culpability. Therefore, without other necessary sweeping reforms of the system, the death penalty is a horrible idea. Most countries have banned the death penalty, and a third of those who still have it simply do not practice it. China executes more people than every other nation combined. Virtually every other country that executes as many people as the USA is a place most people would find scary to live: North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria. If the places where the punishments are harshest are also the places where the most people are punished, it calls into question the logic that harsh punishment deters crime. But, on the other hand, I think that people who are violent need to be isolated from society until they are no longer dangerous. A person who commits murder is likely to do it again. The most cost-effective way to separate such a person from society permanently is by killing them. But then we're back at the conundrum of incompetent people deciding who no longer gets to exist, which is a huge problem. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those questions that does not have a correct answer, only multiple wrong answers - and then people get in arguments with each other about which answer is less wrong.

Great comment! Is killing someone really the most cost-effective way to remove someone permanently? I've always read that it actually costs more than life without parole? In the US anyway. When I think of executions Saudi Arabia always comes to my mind first because I sometimes follow Amnesty International and several groups that help to get atheists and homosexuals out of countries where they are in danger. And then I think of China... what do you think about China's organ harvesting? Are they mass executing people for their organs for profit? Is that fact or fiction?

It's expensive either way. Death penalty trials cost almost twice as much, but the average prsoner costs the state $45k/year. After about 10 years, it balances out. In Saudi Arabia, execution is cheap, since they just bash the accused with a rock. China has a mobile death van that picks up the prisoner and administers leghal injection. Chinese people hate to waste anything, so it'd make sense to harvest the organs. China has some of the loosest restrictions on execution

Execution in Saudi Arabia is not very expensive so I guess it depends on the form of execution. Snapping the neck is cheap and effective. And if China wants to keep harvesting organs they need to quit releasing viruses or the organs won't be worth much. Also the lethal injection would have to be given after the organs were harvested, and that would need to be done at a medical facility. Maybe not in China, what do I know?

But what if China deems it legal for China to release deadly viruses? Not everyone has the same moral values. The government of China just reflects the moral values of the people in China, so what's the problem then?

so your ex brother-in-law should be able to execute you?

Thanks! That's the sort of answer I was looking for.