I am vehemently anti-capital punishment, in *any* case. Full-stop. I'm not OK with this, I wasn't OK with Saddam Hussein's (filmed and publicly distributed) execution either. I'm not here to say whether Troy Davis was innocent or guilty, but that either way, ending his life was morally wrong and grotesque.

This.  Very this.

I am a simple person.  I take what I earn, be it a punch to the face or a hundred dollar bill.  Some crimes are not forgivable with little choice but to end the person's life.  Certain examples have been brought forward such as Troy Davis and Saddam Hussein. 

In the case of Troy Davis, I find myself uncertain.  The information is over twenty years old.  The witnesses began recanting five years after the fact which is understandable considering I can barely place the chain of events that took me to work last Thursday.  Should he have been executed?  I don't know.  But the court ruled that for the crimes he was convicted of that he be put to death.  I will abide by the ruling.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, I am a bit more certain.  He was too volatile even once humbled before the World Court.  A person like Hussein is too easily made into a figure head or martyr under the filthy Western wheel of law.  Executing him ended that quickly.  The one caveat that I do have is that it should have been done quickly, quietly, and without publication other than a blurb about it... which is near impossible in today's world of 24-hour news networks. 

Just out of curiosity, what would be proposed instead of capital punishment for certain crimes?  Life incarceration? Lobotomy?  Labor Camps? Exile to remote parts of the country?

Two someones, actually, plus someone who got shot in the face, but you're only vocally concerned about one. Funny how that works.

Being an ass on purpose? We are talking about a recent execution. This in no way means I or we are careless on the subject of the murder victim.

Play devil's advocate all you want, it's good for us.

But don't do bullshit like this. It's beneath you.

Regardless of whether this particular execution was ultimately in error or not, our justice system is not sufficiently infallible for me to approve of its conclusions being used to kill people.

Killing others should always be an act of last resort, and I don't see what the death sentence accomplishes for our society that isn't already accomplished by life in prison with no parole.

6) because it is a deterrent for future criminals. -- would be a better argument if it were true. Studies show it is not.

We (the U.S.) also, in my opinion, imprison way more than we ought to.

I think "hate crimes" are a distinguishable category because of their intent and effects - in addition to the damage done to the victim, it's often meant to, and often succeeds at, threatening or terrorizing the entire class of people that motivated the crime.

Burning a cross on a black family's lawn isn't simply an act of vandalism; it's a threat to that family and the community that they belong to.  Gay-bashing isn't simply an act of assault and battery; it's a message to homosexuals at large that they'd better keep their orientation hidden or risk the same happening to them.

If you think the thought process of the killer should be irrelevant, do you also think that killing in self-defense or the defense of others should be prosecuted just like a premeditated murder?

6) because it is a deterrent for future criminals. -- would be a better argument if it were true. Studies show it is not.

It would be if justice were swift, executions were public, and being caught was highly likely. These were the conditions in small frontier towns, and it is that memory that keeps capital punishment fueled in the US the way that it is.

But justice doesn't and can't work that way permanently. That was the whole point of the classic Eastwood movie Hang 'Em High, which is highly, highly recommended as a counterpoint to this thread. The movie is a powerfully crafted meditation on capital punishment, justice, and the practical limits of both. The character that I find most interesting in that movie is not Eastwood's -- Eastwood's cowboy characters are always empty shells under a broad hat -- but the famous "Hanging Judge", Isaac Parker, the man that all the stories of tough Old West Justice are ultimately based on. (The judge in True Grit is also Judge Parker -- both versions, John Wayne's and Jeff Bridges'.) His was the thankless job of trying the criminals fleeing into Indian Territory -- Oklahoma-to-be -- from all parts of the West. He knows darn well he's likely hanging too many people, but he's doing his best with the resources he has... and things would be worse without him... and even an imperfect trial is far, far better than a lynching.

But Judge Parker also points out that this is all a temporary situation, created by the fact that Oklahoma doesn't yet have the population or infrastructure for a properly constituted justice system... or the prison system to be more humane. And that it will be better when all these things come about. Frontier justice is not optimal, no matter how much we Americans romanticize our frontier experience.

Burning a cross on a black family's lawn isn't simply an act of vandalism; it's a threat to that family and the community that they belong to.

Give the man a hand. In the legal sense, it's not just vandalism and trespassing -- misdemeanors -- but a threat to commit worse crimes, including but not limited to assault, battery, and murder. And a single murder -- say, of a gay man -- is an implicit threat to commit further murders. On top of which, these crimes are often committed anonymously, or with other measures intended to evade the law's reach regarding the implied conspiracy to commit. This amounts to racketeering... and the FBI treats hate crime organizations like the Klan in much the same manner as the Mafia for this very reason.

To return to the point: copkilling is treated differently simply because cops are clannish. They are avenging their own. In this they are no different than any gang or mafia. The difference is that the cops use legal means for their retribution.... and abide by the law even if the jury rules the other way.

We (the U.S.) also, in my opinion, imprison way more than we ought to.

I completely agree with this.  Some people are put in prison for the dumbest things.

On one side, I have to say we are a work in progress in context to our laws.  Do we follow the Code of Hammurabi  or sentencing death or dismemberment for every little thing.

If person a is killed because the killer didn't like gays or if a person is killed for not handing over their purse to a robber, the intent, the act and the result is the same.

I have to disagree with you there.  The intent is NOT the same.  In the case of the robbery, the robber's intent was to separate the victim from their money - but when things didn't pan out that way, they changed their plans.  In the case of a hate crime (specifically a racially, politically, etc. -motivated murder), the intent is to KILL, and to terrorize those of the same group as the victim.

It's much the same between the varying "degrees" of murder.  Third-degree murder would be if you got into a fight, and instead of just doing your best to extract yourself from the fight and flee, you grab a weapon and kill the other person.  First-degree murder is planned in advance, with a specific victim in mind.  I do not believe that a person who made an unwise decision in the middle of a bad situation should be punished the same as a person who planned a murder in advance.  The two are worlds apart.

The difference, to me, is that if you kill they guy who slept with your wife, that's a pretty singular muderous intent. If you kill a gay man just because he's gay, you have expressed an implicit willingness to kill about 10% of the world without provocation.