. I see this issue in pretty clear black-and-white terms, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
I believe that it is wrong to kill. Full stop. Period.
I notice that in the poll you don't offer anyone the option of flat out disagreeing with CapPun. Why's that?
How many serial killers are there, really? Not enough to justify making policy decisions on their behalf. Most of them aren't ever sentenced to death anyway, because they are ill.
Thats basically what condoning an action is... :S
Thats basically what condoning an action is... :S
Dictionary says it is to disregard something. I'll put a note in my original post."Condoning" means accepting, not rejecting or disagreeing. Just FYI.
Wrong to kill? Even if it returning the favour to serial killers?
Society does not administer justice by "returning the favour to serial killers". That kind of turns society into the equivalent of a serial killer, no?
Society does not administer justice by "returning the favour to serial killers".
That kind of turns society into the equivalent of a serial killer, no?
Society does not administer justice by "returning the favour to serial killers". That kind of turns society into the equivalent of a serial killer, no?
Thats basically what condoning an action is... :S
Plus keeping them alive would just be a drain on the state's resources.
StillBallin75 said:If they deserve to die, they should die. I see this issue in pretty clear black-and-white terms, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Incorrect. Putting someone to death costs far, far more than keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives...mostly due to the legal costs associated with all the appeals. And the only way to change that would be to deny someone their due process, which we aren't about to do. So capital punishment is a drain on the state's resources, much moreso than keeping them in prison is.
Incorrect. Putting someone to death costs far, far more than keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives...mostly due to the legal costs associated with all the appeals. And the only way to change that would be to deny someone their due process, which we aren't about to do. So capital punishment is a drain on the state's resources, much moreso than keeping them in prison is.
That's why I added the caveat that justice system must produce the correct outcome in previous post. This is an indictment of the justice system and its results, not an indictment of capital punishment specifically.Aside from the cost, there's the fact that a significant percentage of death row inmates have been exonerated...and those are just the ones we know about.
People who murder have lost their human rights, because imo they have ceased to be human. When the state kills it kills for (what I believe to be) a worthy cause (the administration of proper justice), and thus I don't believe capital punishment is equivalent to murderous behavior.Furthermore, there's the human rights aspect of it...why should we behave like murderers simply because others do?
Only because we allow appeals to drag on for ten or more years. Give them a fair trial with first class legal representation. Give the convicted people a reasonably speedy appeal with a first class legal team provided at tax payer expense where ALL issues of appeal must be brought up.
haymarket said:Zangara was tried, sliced and diced in five weeks from the time he tried to kill FDR in 1933 and did kill Anton Cermak. I doubt if we can match that timeline, but its something to aim for.