Looking at the need for ritualized murder, there are many theories, mostly fanciful.

Fact: For some reason, humans living in social groups really seem to like collective violence, especially when it is a ritualized murder with a pre-designated victim. (By the way, this description is equally applicable to sacrifice and execution, despite their possible differences.)

Question: Why the heck do we do that?

No satisfactory answer has been given, to date, if you ask me, but here are a few theories...

Freud: The Oedipal Complex. We kill them because we feel bad about wanting to kill daddy, so we find someone else to kill instead and feel better about it. Freuds evidence of this includes a high...

Looking at the need for ritualized murder, there are many theories, mostly fanciful.

Fact: For some reason, humans living in social groups really seem to like collective violence, especially when it is a ritualized murder with a pre-designated victim. (By the way, this description is equally applicable to sacrifice and execution, despite their possible differences.)

Question: Why the heck do we do that?

No satisfactory answer has been given, to date, if you ask me, but here are a few theories...

Freud: The Oedipal Complex. We kill them because we feel bad about wanting to kill daddy, so we find someone else to kill instead and feel better about it. Freuds evidence of this includes a highly imporbable scenario in which he swears is true, where in blood-thirsty gazell on the African Savanah murder and eat their elders in order to assume sexual domination of the gazell pack.

Durkheim: We do it for a sort of warm fuzzy feeling that brings us together. The family that kills together stays together. But only for a little bit, then we got to do it again, since purity is liminal!

Perhaps it is as simple as this: by victimizing one of "them" we conversely define ourselves, those who do the victimizing. And that's really the better position to be in - just ask anyone who was ever victimized.

But then again, things are seldom that simple. Could it be this simple: we like killing people because it's an easy impulse, doesn't take much thought, and it shows that we have the power?

The death penalty is punishment for a misdeed and the punishment is death. A human sacrifice is a life taken either at random or by some random set of criteria for purposes of either entertainment or ritual. The death penalty is done behind closed doors. A human sacrifice is done opennly for many to see. The death penalty is a conclusion deduced from certain lines of moral logic. A human sacrifice is a barbaric custom derived from a severe lack of logic. The only dots I'm connecting here is that someone dies. I mean, seriously? The vast majority of people have NO PART whatsoever in killing anyone, whether it be the people murdered or the people receiving the death penalty. They are ...

The death penalty is punishment for a misdeed and the punishment is death. A human sacrifice is a life taken either at random or by some random set of criteria for purposes of either entertainment or ritual. The death penalty is done behind closed doors. A human sacrifice is done opennly for many to see. The death penalty is a conclusion deduced from certain lines of moral logic. A human sacrifice is a barbaric custom derived from a severe lack of logic. The only dots I'm connecting here is that someone dies. I mean, seriously? The vast majority of people have NO PART whatsoever in killing anyone, whether it be the people murdered or the people receiving the death penalty. They are two different things entirely. It often is that simple, it's called Ockham's Razor.

Link to Study - At either the national level or looking solely at Texas, and using a variety of model specifications, we found no evidence of a deterrent effect of capital punishment on the rates of capital-eligible homicides. To the contrary, our models found that the market share of homicides that are capital-eligible grows over time, even as the risk of execution increases. We conclude that despite the recent drop in homicides as a whole, the threat of execution has had no deterrent effect on the very cases it was designed to prevent and that there has been no evidence of any differences between death penalty s...

Link to Study - At either the national level or looking solely at Texas, and using a variety of model specifications, we found no evidence of a deterrent effect of capital punishment on the rates of capital-eligible homicides. To the contrary, our models found that the market share of homicides that are capital-eligible grows over time, even as the risk of execution increases. We conclude that despite the recent drop in homicides as a whole, the threat of execution has had no deterrent effect on the very cases it was designed to prevent and that there has been no evidence of any differences between death penalty states and those that have rejected capital punishment. If the death penalty would deter any form of homicide, it should deter first and foremost those murders that might result in execution. This study found no evidence of deterrence in that small yet critical slice of homicides.

In Response to Btcheesenip (and others)...

1. Occam's Razor:
The simplest answer is always true. This is inductive logic, not deductive. It is also impossible to imagine it as true. Given any answer to a question, it is obviously possible to think of more complex ways, and simpler ones as well. Is DNA really the simplest explanation of our physical traits? Not really. Is gravity the simplest explanation of attraction between massive bodies? Certainly not. In slight correction, Occam's Razor has no place in Science. It is a superstitious and speculative way of reasoning absent observable facts.

Even worse, it is used to avoid scrutiny of our own opinions. The answer that the death penalty...

In Response to Btcheesenip (and others)...

1. Occam's Razor:
The simplest answer is always true. This is inductive logic, not deductive. It is also impossible to imagine it as true. Given any answer to a question, it is obviously possible to think of more complex ways, and simpler ones as well. Is DNA really the simplest explanation of our physical traits? Not really. Is gravity the simplest explanation of attraction between massive bodies? Certainly not. In slight correction, Occam's Razor has no place in Science. It is a superstitious and speculative way of reasoning absent observable facts.

Even worse, it is used to avoid scrutiny of our own opinions. The answer that the death penalty and human sacrifice are entirely different without anything in common is A. Wrong and B. Not the simplest answer. Since there is no objective criterion of simplicity, then it simply comes down to "which answer requires the least thought." I can guarantee you, the answer you think the least about is the lie you're telling yourself.

2. The Death Penalty, Murder and Sacrafice
Let's define these three terms real quick.

Murder is the simplest. Murder can be defined as when one person takes the life of another without a cause deemed reasonable by society. (For instance, money is not a reasonable cause, but self-defense, justice, or warfare are reasonable causes.)

Death Penalty is when an individual, invested with power by the state, takes another human life, in a controlled (non-combat) procedure, in retaliation for a moral transgression on the part of the victim, with the stated goal of creating a safer society and carrying out justice.

Sacrifice is when an individual, invested with power by the state (which must permit the ritual), takes another human life, in a controlled (non-combat) procedure, in order to satisfy a religious obligation, with the stated goal of creating a better society and serving a god, symbolic or real.

3. Similarities:
First, all three have the following characteristics in common: One individual, in a position of power, (the agent) takes the life of another individual, in a position of weakness. (the victim) In all three, let us presume that the weaker individual is not a willing participant. (Although that may not universally be the case in sacrifice, but let's just say those who assent to being sacrificed have probably been misled, which is an abrogation of one's free will.)

From a Kantian perspective, all three are immoral because the victim is used as a mere means. Given that both the victim and the agent are humans, with no scientific way of distinguishing them in fundamental human d...

3. Similarities:
First, all three have the following characteristics in common: One individual, in a position of power, (the agent) takes the life of another individual, in a position of weakness. (the victim) In all three, let us presume that the weaker individual is not a willing participant. (Although that may not universally be the case in sacrifice, but let's just say those who assent to being sacrificed have probably been misled, which is an abrogation of one's free will.)

From a Kantian perspective, all three are immoral because the victim is used as a mere means. Given that both the victim and the agent are humans, with no scientific way of distinguishing them in fundamental human dignity, we must presume they are inherently equal. However, that equality is violated, when one imposes his will on the other.

The agent is working to achieve his goal, and in order to do so, the victim must die. The victim does not benefit from the achievement of the goal (unless you believe in the theology of sacrifice, which I'm assuming none of us do!) yet the victim pays the price. This means the victim is used as a means to achieving a goal he does not benefit from. In essence we are using human being as if he was a mere object. I find this morally troublesome.

The difference between these three - Murder, the Death Penalty, and Sacrifice - thus, is not in the procedure, but in the goal being achieved.

Considering sacrifice and the death penalty in contrast to murder, we could say they are both communally justifiable actions, where as murder is only personally justifiable. The goal achieved my murder is personal, while the goal served by execution or sacrifice is normally thought of as beneficial to the whole society. Thus both are perceived as acts of charity or public service, thereby excusing the transgression that killing people normally would be.

4. The Necessarily Religious aspects of Capital Punishment

Finally, I would like add a little bit of perspective on the religious aspect of capital punishment, which I believe is important. It is one of modern politics' greatest incongruities that people who are "pro-life" are also often the most fervently in favor of the death penalty. Why? I believe that God is the answer.

Consider this: Conscientious Objectors

Generally, killing another person is viewed as wrong, and prohibited by most religions. However, not all religions are granted conscientious objectors by the US government. Why is that?

Let's contrast my religion, Buddhism, with that of the moral majority, which is Christianity ...

4. The Necessarily Religious aspects of Capital Punishment

Finally, I would like add a little bit of perspective on the religious aspect of capital punishment, which I believe is important. It is one of modern politics' greatest incongruities that people who are "pro-life" are also often the most fervently in favor of the death penalty. Why? I believe that God is the answer.

Consider this: Conscientious Objectors

Generally, killing another person is viewed as wrong, and prohibited by most religions. However, not all religions are granted conscientious objectors by the US government. Why is that?

Let's contrast my religion, Buddhism, with that of the moral majority, which is Christianity in some form or another. In both Christianity and Buddhism, there is the religious commandment that essentially reads "don't kill." But there is a key difference. The Christian commandment actually reads more like: Don't Kill.*

Why is it that Christians can endorse war, the death penalty, and all sorts of other killings while I cannot? God.

A question to the Christians out there: Would an executioner who carries out the death penalty go to hell? What if he carried out the death penalty on someone who was later absolved by DNA evidence? (it happens.) Most of the Christians say that, if the person is a good Christian, then yes, because God will absolve them of their sins. In a more Biblical sense, killing appears to be a-okay by the Abrahamic God, as long as you are killing for a reason that HE likes.

On the other hand, as a Buddhist, I have no god to forgive my transgressions or warrant my crimes. If taking human life is a sin, it remains my sin, no mater what justification I may offer. Unlike Christianity, in Buddhism the means can never justify the ends. Even in cases where it is morally warranted, that does not absolve the killer of the sin, and cannot excuse them from the consequences of their actions. Thus, execution, sacrifice and murder ARE the same for me.