I was not saying that a person who does many crimes should be killed. I said a person who cannot be rehabilitated should be killed. A person who murders a thousand in cold blood, but then shows signs that they were crazy, under the influence, and not under the right state of mind afterwards, should never get the death penalty, or life sentence, or anything. Justice is a bullshit and flawed concept, and a person isn't the same person after going through a prison system. Unless a person has a mental condition, or a trait, or what not, that shows they will never be able to be cured, the death penalty shouldn't happen. Say you have an antisocial person who stole a wallet. Off with the head. Murder-rapist of a thousand who was raised by an abusive mother and father and was raised to hate all of the people around him? I'd say second chances are a good thing.
Forgive my inaccuracy.
Say you have an antisocial person who stole a wallet. Off with the head.
Ouch.
What purpose does the death penalty serve? To get those who are dysfunctional out of society, because banishment isn't going to work. If you are a person who cannot function inside of the law, who will ignore things for your own gain, you do not belong in society.
Your stance raises the interesting metric of "how one knows when rehabilitation isn't possible," which to me seems most likely to be "attempt to rehabilitate a person multiple times until it becomes clear it is ineffective." This puts aside at least some of the immediacy of the worry of cutting someone's head off simply because he has stolen a wallet, AnSionnachRua - although I don't claim it's a perfect suggestion.