continued

It is instructive to the prisoner, in this regard, that society gives to him/her that sentence which is the most just and represents society's condemnation for the crime. Among many other things, criminals should be able to appreciate the level of their transgression, by society's just condemnation of it. This is the beginning of the rehabilitative process.

Mr. Tallman concludes in his next topic, retribution, that:

" . . retribution not only justifies execution, it requires it. Execution is the only correct penalty-in-kind for murder, and retribution is the only value so far analyzed which justifies taking this most precious of payments from someone. "

I agree. In other words it is not only just and required, it is also the most insructive and thus, the more important in the rehabilitation process.

Rehabilitation and incapacitation, taken together or individually, are important and both weigh in favor of the death penalty over LWOP.

Mr. Tallman wrongly concludes that "rehabilitation and incapacitation taken together become moot issues."

Even though executed murderers can never harm or murder again and living murderers can always harm or murder, again, Tallman states:

"I’m willing to grant that incapacitation is a non-issue in this debate. "

Wrong. Incapacitation weighs strongly in favor of the death penalty. It is not even a close call.

Mr. Tallman writes: "Rehabilitation is the goal of reforming the criminal so that he can be reintegrated into society as a well-behaved, productive citizen."

Mr. Tallman overlooks the obvious and the important.

Rehabilitation is an internal mechanism that regards an internal changing of the prisoner's character, and thus will be manifest in prison and/or after release.

This is a particularly useful understanding when we are speaking of life without parole and death sentenced prisoners.

It is instructive to the prisoner, in this regard, that society gives