It should be supported in both principle and practice.
Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.
It should be opposed both in principle and practice.
No contradiction. You seem to be confused over the difference between DIRECT DEFENSE and PREEMPTIVE DEFENSE.
One is related to an imminent threat, the other is playing a game of craps.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Life imprisonment seems to work the same without granting the state the same fear, awe and power as giving it the right to execute.
I might be more willing if the gov't you were talking about was only a very local, very democratic and very accountable one perhaps.
As for deterrence I'm not convinced, one can make a lot of claims about correlations either way, compare Britain with the US for instance. But morally I don't think it is a good argument unless it is extremely effective and also I don't understand why you'd stop at lethal injection. If that deters people surely hang, drawing and quartering or burning at the stake will serve even better?
Last edited by Wessexman; 12-03-08 at 11:27 PM.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke