"Just like the right to keep and bear arms is a warranty that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical state, abolition of the death penalty is the warranty that this tyrannical state won't be allowed to kill you.
Consider any tyranny, and you'll see that it resorts to death penalty."
Thanks for the information but this is getting tiresome really, and you may consider reading what I actually wrote. I made a clear distinction, notably in my previous answers to you and lg between liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes.
"if life is seen as a possession, then the right of possession is the most important right"
Well, it's not exactly so much about seeing "life" itself as a "possession" than the general principle of self ownership.
That makes your use of a conditional form rather queer since there really isn't much to ponder here. Unless you're ready to accept the idea of slavery, of course.
"Now, I don't see why the "ultimate penalty" should be death penalty. For me it's life in prison."
This is a ridiculous statement that you're obviously making without thinking. If the ultimate penalty was life in prison, then it means that death would be a less serious one and could even be considered first to punish the same offence with less severity… Say, before sentencing the repeat offenders to life in prison?
Interesting logic.
"If someone commits 10 times your (not defined) "ultimate crime", you can't apply 10 times your ultimate penalty"
Well that's where you're making another mistake: the simple fact that it is the ultimate penalty means precisely that applying it 1 time is enough.
"So your linearity turns out to be "degressivity" to the worst law offenders."
Hehe. In fact, it reinforces my point: since one can commit the ultimate crime several times but can only receive the ultimate punishment once, then it definitely means one shouldn't be spared.
"In fact, you can't really apply mathematics-type rules to justice, but you can be sure that your "proportionality" is nothing but an illusion."
This is not about mathematics, nor is it the old "an eye for an eye" rule. You're missing the point (sorry) for "proportionalitity" is relative to the nature of the crime and the nature of the punishment answering it, not the number of time you did it.
I thought that was rather obvious.
"Laws can be unjust and enable executions for crimes like adultery (Iran for example), poaching (medieval France)" and so on. These aren't arbitrary decided executions, but will you defend it ?
A dictatorial state can create laws that will condemn you (a dictatorship is characterised by the concentration of legislature, executive and judicial, and sometimes religious, powers)."
Again, thanks for the extensive information on the means and ends of the totalitarians. See my first answer in this comment, as well as the previous ones. See the distinction I made about death sentence under the rule of law and the same sentence under the rule of power and arbitrariness. And tell me where you saw me defending its application by a totalitarian regime…
If you recall, you were the one challenged for being much less voiceful to condemn it in such countries (China?) actually. But you slid into a blessed oblivion on that part. Again.
"A dictatorial state can create laws (…)It also may make false proof (Mumia's defenders pretend such a thing, but it's another debate as you would say, right ?)."
And you're therefore implying the United States is a dictatorial state. Must be fancy and fashionable among the other tinfoil hat bearers, but here it will only gain you a slightly amused silence, the one people usually reserve for the retarded nephew at Auntie Lulu's Christmas party.
"Death penalty means that the sentenced person is deprived of the possibility to enjoy any of the rights a human being can pretend to."
Nope. It means the sentenced person deprived someone from each and every rights, human or not, arbitrarily and he is being proportionally punished for that, at the end of a long legal and moral process.
I shall add, as a side note, that this tendency to stand for the rights of people who don't give a damn about their victim's has some really disgusting feel. Very French Left indeed.
"Prison for life is the loss of liberty, but it's compatible with Jefferson's words quoted by DF("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.), the rights of the others that justify this loss of liberty being the right to be protected.
That makes a lot of difference, and that's why a "decent liberal democracy" shouldn't use death penalty."
You're not making any sense (what's the relation to Jefferson on liberty here?), and you're dodging the question of proportionality again, which is not really surprising, considering that you didn't understand it's nature. I'd say therefore that your "logical" conclusion on "why we shouldn't" doesn't hold again, and for the same reasons as before.
"In his mind, and in the mind of people like him, he is a martyr."
There's nothing in his mind, because he received the ultimate punishment. He's friggin' dead.
As for "other people like him" I don't know… What are you talking about? Anybody in particular?
"I'm not really interested in the other cases."
That's brilliant, and actually resumes pretty well what I think of the anti-death penalty crowd. Thanks a lot.
(Also, I didn't get the point of your last "me saying Chinese, me saying English" which is why I'm ignoring it. Feel free to precise your thought if you believe it's a crucial issue)