Since you don't believe - apparently - that criminal sentencing should have anything whatosover to do with societal vengence or punishment - AGAIN do you believe that people in prison should be subjected to murder by other inmate?
Never said that. Nor have I implied that. In fact I don't believe that teh issues are related. One is about the government killing it's citizens, the other is about the abysmal state of our prison system.
It's a red herring and a non-sequitor argument.
Murderers kill other inmates who are their for reasons including drug crimes. I gather you approve of non-murderer inmate citizens being murdered - because the government isn't doing the murdering, rather just staging the murders.
Again, different issue altogether.
If you want to discuss the way to fisx the abysmal state of the prison system, so be it, I'll discuss it with you in another thread, but this is about capital punishment. Your argumnets are sillogical because the risk to other inmates is not caused by teh lack of death penalty, it is caused by a failure of the prison system.
Death penalty is NOT the cruelest punishment. Even of unthinkably torturous Devil's Island and those POWs tortured in Vietnam, they claimed the cruelest punishment of all was solitary isolation.
Irrelevant emotional tripe. I never made any arguments about cruelty.
Therefore, in fact of reality and not just your theory, you must either support:
1. That punishment murder will be the absolute cruelest and most life long tortuous of all possible punishment
What nonsense, bonnie. You know I never made any such argument about cruelty.
2. That people in prison have sacrificed their lives regard of the crime they were found guilty of
Again, noinsense unrelated to my arguments.
3. It is better that 1,000 innocent citizens be killed than 1 murderer be executed.
STILL unrelated to my arguments. If yuo want to argue against
MY [points on the issue, please do so. Until then, please give up trying to paint my arguemtn into something it most assuredly is not.
Which one then in the alternative to capital punishment do you pick? If you pick solitary confinement for life, are there any other less cruel tortures you also want in the legal code?
Somehow demanding the government engage in the ultimate form of torture of murderers to avoid the injustice of executing murderers doesn't seem to hold ethical water. How about, instead, chopping off their arms and legs? That isn't murder and would seem to nearly always end their ability to hurt others. Since that is less torturous than life long solitary confinement, I suppose your ethics calls for amputations instead for moral reason?
You are missing my point entirely, but still making up arguemtns that are totally unrelated to my point. So I am forced one final time make the point that is the ONLY relevant point on the issue.
Logical sequence:
Premise 1: The Governmnt should not have more rights than the Citizens it exists for.
Premise 2: The citizens do not have the right to kill other citizens in a premeditated fashion.
Premise 3: The Death Penalty is killing in a premeditated fashion
Conclusion: The government should NOT be allowed to give out the Death Penalty.
That is the entirety of my argument. If you disagree with my argument, tell me which premise you find to be in error, or that you do not agree with. Show me what premise you would prefer.
Responding with emotion-laden nonsense about cruelty, prison murders, etc, will be construed as failure to have a logical response and a tacit agreement that the deat penalty is illogical, irrational and unjustified.
My argumetn is about teh death penalty, and the government's right to have it. I am
not making any emotional pleas.