I don't use the "negatively affected" notion to justify and/or argue in favor of execution. I use it because that's an argument I've heard as reasoning against execution.

Regarding the ability to prove: I agree completely.

Regarding the victim's families' feelings: You say it's doubtful they feel any better. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that some do and some don't. But I'm not sure why you think that's the more important question.

You write: " . . . it's not a country's job to take revenge on anyone." Firstly, that implies it is someone's job. Tell me whose it is. Secondly, I disagree. Imprisonment is a form of revenge. Revenge does not have to be tit for tat. One of government's specific jobs is to catch and punish, by imprisonment or otherwise, those who break the laws of the society. We want governemnt to do that, or else it's anarchy--somewhat like the Old West in the U.S.

You say punishment is about keeping the culprit from doing the same and taking his freedom. Execution accomplishes those two things. Unless you think of death as a different kind of freedom, I suppose.

I honestly don't understand the last bit. Please explain. How does Norway "keep the higher ground" by putting him in prison for the rest of his life as opposed to executing him?



It doesn't always have to go around in circles, nor will no one's mind never be changed. But I do agree, that those are usually how the arguments turn out.