Even if most individuals who endure severe hardship recover well from it, most criminals are individuals who have been unable to. This difference is attributable to the fact that, within the category of individuals who have endured hardship, severity of that hardship and personal strength to overcome it are not distributed evenly. That's what I meant when I said that everyone and their experiences are different. Violent crimes are inexcusable regardless of whether or not the perpetrator falls into this category, but I refuse to discount the humanity of those individuals who do.

I've lived a peaceful life. I've never had the shit beaten out of me as a child by someone whom I should have been able to trust, or raped, or abused in any other way. For this reason, I would never be able to approach someone who had and demanded that they get over it and pull themselves together simply because someone else who had been abused was able to. Again, not everyone's experiences are identical, and not everyone is endowed with the same personal strengths. Also again, regardless of variation in this regard, violent crimes committed by any such person are still impermissible.

My main point is that no standard can be set for hardship, and that the personal hell of an abuse victim is completely understandable only by that person. This hardship never excuses a violent crime, but it does merit consideration when evaluating such behavior. It's my opinion that a person who has been unable to overcome severe hardship, and who commits a violent crime punishable by death, should have that hardship acknowledged, and accorded whatever shred dignity they've been denied as broken human beings.

While it's true that some individuals overcome the adverse conditions of their upbringing, not everyone does. Oprah is a good example of the former, Aileen Wuornos is a good example of the latter. Oprah was strong enough to take control of her life and grow into a successful adult. She's very personally gifted, and was very fortunate. Miss Wuornos got stuck in a psychological rut and became consumed by her hatred of herself and of the world. Everyone is different, and everyone has his or her own unique life experiences.

Although some people, like Scott Peterson, who commit unpardonable crimes have led ostensibly ideal lives, most criminals have sustained psychological trauma of some sort that has adversely affected their ability to manage their own thoughts and feelings, and their ability to respect not only others but themselves. I, for one, can't bring myself to blame such criminals for who they've become. This is not equivalent to pardoning their wrongdoings, but I refuse to demonize them for them.

It's important to remember that complete recovery from these hardships is the exception rather than the rule and that, no matter appearances, the human mind is actually a very fragile thing.

First of all, some executions are determined to be mistakes after they're a done deal, so they're a bad idea in general. Just one mistake is too many, is it not?

Secondly, the purpose of executions is to protect society from dangerous individuals (although simple imprisonment would likely suffice), not to cultivate a taste for sadistic voyeurism in the citizenry. Might not public executions also cultivate some of the same qualities in the average citizen that are being punished in the criminal, if the public is conditioned to appreciate death and suffering, whether physical or psychological, as a possible form of entertainment?

Thirdly, it's gratuitous. It adds insult to injury to a person who very well may have been an outstanding individual if only he/she hadn't been regularly beaten, or repeatedly raped, or born into abject poverty and given a generally violent upbringing. The movie "Monster", starring Charlize Theron, is about this point exactly.

Let's try having respect for all human life, even if that human life had no respect for any human life, shall we? Practicing contempt and sadism is a sure way to become a monster yourself.

That is equivalent to sending a part of Earth into the Sun. Whether a waste material is recycled, burned, buried, or simply dumped somewhere, its component elements are eventually available for reuse in some way here on Earth, even if only after a very long time. Resources would ultimately be exhausted if they were harvested only to be irretrievably discarded.

"Also it should be noted that the English translation is a very sketchy one that can easily be twisted out of order."

Are you serious?

If I hand you a contract that's written entirely in a language that you don't understand, are you going to sign it and THEN ask me to translate it for you?

Quit responding, Terminator. This person clearly thrives on attention.