Capital Punishment Revisited

This has been debated hotly on other occasions, but I'd just like to reiterate my viewpoint which was just substantiated by an Idaho jury.

Death for man who kidnapped, murdered Idaho boy


This justifies the death penalty, IMO and I would have no hesitation in delivering it myself. These jurors did the right thing.

How does it justify the Death Penalty? Because you think his actions warrant it? As far as I can see he "defended" himself, how do you know he is not suffering from some abnormality of mind? Seems to me that your nation are always quick to point out the heinousness of crime "x" and say it justifies "y" losing his life... All we know of the perpetrator is written in that story (and the others I've read - it's a hotly debated topic in other places)...

EDIT: Thought some more about this, and it seems to me that the only reason to give anyone the Death Penalty is as some sort of revenge, eye for an eye and all that bollox. It doesnt seem very much like Justice at all... And as for it's deterrent effect, about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

This post has been edited by TheBaldingOne: Aug 28 2008, 06:06 AM

And if this murderer had spent the rest of his life in prison, three purposes would have been served:

1. Deterrence
2. No risk of reoffending
3. One less human killing

Now he's going to be permanently removed from the gene pool. Maybe the human race will improve just a little bit.

That's a strange statement - has he no relatives? Besides, life prisoners don't usually father children!

Funny, we as human beings don't mind eradicating other harmful vermin but when it's a vermin that has two arms, two legs and speaks we shy away from it.

I think my opinion's pretty widely known by now: burlap sack + deep river = problem solved.

If his relatives demonstrate similar behavior then they would, presumably, also commit such crimes and be executed. Those that don't simply may not have gotten the genetic traits.

Why bother imprisoning them for life if they don't even have their genetic code to contribute to the species? On the level of a species it seems a waste of resources. You may as well get rid of them if the only thing they have ever have, or ever will, contribute is murdering, torturing, and raping others.

Btw, a believe a number of countries do allow lifers and death row inmates conjugal visits.

So state sanctioned murder is about revenge and eugenics.

Nice

I think the Nazi's proved that trying to interfere in evolution was at best a terrifyingly bad idea. In my view criminal behaviour isn't hereditary it's learned. I'd say that certain sadistic behaviour is formed quite early on (as we've discussed before), that sort of thing is deep seated and can't be undone - hence the bag/river solution.

This post has been edited by m15hun: Aug 28 2008, 03:21 PM

That's like saying that life imprisonment is about completely removing civil liberties. Anyways, I was talking more on a species level rather then the level of our very subjective human ethics and morality.

I wonder though, do those that prey on the weak and defenseless somehow help the species? I suppose they might in some ways. Perhaps in a small way they help reduce the population and reduce overcrowding. Maybe they also help strengthen the species by removing the weakest from the gene pool. Maybe they do serve a valuable purpose.

Maybe we shouldn't even imprison them and they should be encouraged to breed.

Btw, I accidentally clicked on the thanks button.

I deleted it for you

In many ways that’s what this perennial topic is always about – the right to delete those that we don’t like or that have offended us in some way etc, be that the state approved deletion or the illegal and unlawful deletion of murder instead