I will argue that, keeping, or phasing out the death penalty depends on understanding the role that that ritual plays in a society. The death penalty plays a very different role in French society (as in NO ROLE at all!) than it does in Texian society (as in, an eye for an eye). The social history of Texas is quite distinct from France, and the meaning, structure, and function of the death penalty in Texas naturally is quite distinct from its meaning, structure and function in France.

Had France been a sparsely settled 'frontier,' poorly defended by the original inhabitants and the initial colonizing power which was subsequently conquested by an opportunistic and warmongering colonialist (namely Andrew Jackson and effectively the United States) some mere 200 years ago, it might 'need' the death penalty too. There were gunslingers and posses roaming Texas not long ago, while meanwhile France was being painted by impressionists and pointillists. For a glimpse of this check out some old classic John Wayne movies such as The Searchers, or The Cowboys.

Had Texas undergone an utter cataclysm in the form of being invaded, conquered, and subjugated by an external power some mere 70 years ago, it might have an equally strong social aversion to the death penalty, and corollary lack of social utility to be gained from it.

I tend to dislike culturally relativistic arguments, because as a primarily natural (biological) scientist, I think life is life, suffering is suffering, and blocking an individuals full developmental capacity and potential is easily defined in terms of biological processes, opportunities, and constraints. In short, I think that most arguments about the value of the death penalty being relative to the cultural context can be seen as a cop-out in terms of ethics, because from a purely scientific standpoint, what is ethical is that which leads to eudaumonia, the greatest possible good, and the least suffering (in all things living). However, I have to acknowledge that cultural relativism is a pragmatic insight that must be taken into account in strategizing about how to achieve eudaumonia.

Because of cultural relativity, it would be foolhardy to suggest that Texian values should be imposed on the French by fiat. Even if it could be shown that they are ethically, objectively better and could lead to eudaumonia in a culturally-homogeneous context, it still would have to be shown that those imposed values would also work within the different cultural context.

Even if barbecue and 10 gallon hats WOULD help the French to be happier in an ideal world, if they (as a result of their culture) reject such cultural models outright, then the ideals are irrelevant.

I think that any argument of statistics is rather flimsy, which is why I have been a bit hesitant to bring it up myself.  The problem is that with regards to murder, there is a really small percentage, which is well below the margin for error in trying to find out whether or not something is an effective deterrent.  It also doesn't take into effect other factors which may be coming in to play.  The majority of people aren't criminals so the sample of criminals is relatively small.  Statistics in this case don't really seem to be overwhelming in one direction or the other. 

I'm probably in the middle.  I think that pragmatics as well as morality should be used in determining law and punishment.  The effectiveness must be taken into account in such things, otherwise we are just not using our heads.  I take it though that you would be against the death penalty if it was obvious that it were effective or not in reducing murder.  If it were (and it is hypothetical) wouldn't we be morally bound to execute murderers?  Shouldn't the life of the innocent be esteemed above the life of the guilty?  Wouldn't it be immoral to not take measures which would reduce the number of murder victims, even if it meant taking the life of a guilty person?

Sorry to get back to the religion but I think Rabi is trying to show the moral implications of the death penalty, not necessarily bring religion into the debate.  Here you are saying that the eye for an eye thing is so that we don't go too far with our meeting out of justice.  You don't get to take all of some one's property if they steal a candy bar for example.  To properly meet out justice, you must do it proportionately, not excessively, or at least attempt to do so.  Your last statement reminds me of something a guy said, who happens to be Jewish and I am certain he understands the Torah.  He said something like, if you steal something, you can be forgiven, if you hurt someone, you can be forgiven, if you defame someone it can be forgiven but if you kill someone, that person cannot forgive you and the only way you can atone for that sin, is to in fact be put to death.  Now, I do happen to know of Jewish people who support the death penalty because of this concept (assuming I got it right).  The point is not to bring religion into the discussion but to show that it is possible to find moral justification for putting someone to death based on the eye for an eye adage.

Now this is something which I just cannot understand.  I agree that we shouldn't necessarily lock up all murderers for life.  Punishments should be given on a case by case basis.  But to argue that imprisonment should never be for ever borders on the absurd.  Some people are just plain bad and will kill again if given the chance or opportunity.  Serial killers are not all insane.  This is where utility must be taken into account as if we let them out, it is a public safety issue.  Then there is the terror brought to the victims family that he may come after them.  Even if not terror, there is the sense that eventually they got away with their crime. 

I would also argue that it is immoral not to lock up some criminals up for life.  As I have said in other posts, the punishment given for crimes shows our society's value on that crime.  We rate the crimes by their punishments in essence.  I believe murder is so heinous that I believe that death should be the punishment under the worst cases.  I understand the person who views one innocent put to death is too many and favors life in prison but to give that person any hope of seeing the proverbial "light of day" cheapens murder.  20 years, while a long time, still gives a large portion of that person's life which means hope, which means, we don't consider murder to be all that bad in our society. 

I couldn't disagree more.  The difference (and it is all the difference in the world) is that of innocence. 

That's a rather vague and ambiguous statement without an example.  Why don't you show us the right way oh master... or at least respond to my response to yours.

Now, I think this is the whole reason NC brought up the concept that life in prison is worse than death.  What do you say to that?