Yeah, and so do the police. It's their job. What's the point?
Now you're contradicting yourself.
Wrong.:doh
What am I looking for there?
The gov. has the moral obligation to protect its citizens, and that's the end of it. Close the thread.:2razz:
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 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?
Hell yeah! Pack a picnic lunch and make a day of it! Nothing better than a good ol' fashioned public hanging!
an aside, it always really grossed me out how they'd show public hangings in cowboy movies with a crowd of people watching, women sitting on blankets and little kids running around. it's like seriously people, have a church social or something if you're that desperate for a gathering. I can't imagine watching a hanging without puking afterwards. I wonder if that was a big issue back then.
To end life is the ultimate power and carries with it a sense of awe and fear that prison cannot.my question for you wessexman is this--if you grant the state the power to imprison people for life, how is that any different from granting the state the power to execute people? and I mean this seriously. either way you are giving gov't a ton of power, aren't you?
Hell yeah! Pack a picnic lunch and make a day of it! Nothing better than a good ol' fashioned public hanging!
To end life is the ultimate power and carries with it a sense of awe and fear that prison cannot.
To end life is the ultimate power and carries with it a sense of awe and fear that prison cannot.
If it brings a sense of awe and fear, then you're saying it IS a deterrent, right?
the average citizen shouldn't fear the government, though. it should be the other way around.
No, you're right about the average citizen, but as for murderers and scum like that, they SHOULD have fear.
If it brings a sense of awe and fear, then you're saying it IS a deterrent, right?
I believe though he is saying that it promotes fear and awe in general among the citizens,
I mean on a smaller scale, how many people actually see a cop car and think "oh good, if there's a cop around I'm safe"?
personally I think "sheet, sheet, how fast am I going?"
government and authority shouldn't be viewed as punitive or disciplinary figures
--at least, not first and foremost. hopefully citizens remember that gov't is here primarily to serve.
I don't consider it a particularly just or good move to punish someone for what someone else may do.
......
It supposed to be many things.Not in a democracy. It's the people who decide these laws in the first place. Or at least it's supposed to.
This one grants the state a particularly awe inspiring power, that of life and death. The other punishments create this in lesser ways but are still required. Executions are not required, why grant the state more power than it needs?So where does this logic end anyway? Does ANY punishment or government authority create fear in the citizens?
If we were talking about this being done locally by a very accountable and democratic body I might think otherwise.And again, this is an isolated punishment, only murderers need to be afraid of it. It's not the nature of the punishment that submits citizens into fear or thier government it's the centeralization of the system, i.e. authoritarian communist states or fascist dictatorships. It's the fear of unchecked power, not the severity of issued punishments.
That deterrence is a poor argument to me unless it was extremely effective. I also consider it morally dubious.What does that mean though?
I don't think twice about anything when I see a cop, I have nothing to hide from them.
GOOD! Thier purpose is effective then.