SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (81802)6/16/2000 3:22:00 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (2) of 108807
 
I did read farther down. Let's look at what I read:

The death penalty is a fitting response to heinous crimes (not merely murder, but murder with aggravating circumstances) because we must preserve a sense of proportionality in sentencing, and in the schedule of penalties. By the time we reach simple murder, we exhaust our recourse to simple imprisonment as punishment. If we want to differentiate between the ordinary crime and even fouler acts, we resort to execution.

This is a perfect example of the kind of argument I'm protesting. We are debating the fitness and desirability of the existing schedule of penalties. It is not logically acceptable to oppose an adjustment in the schedule of penalties on the grounds that such an adjustment would disrupt the schedule of penalties. The issue must be debated on the grounds of probable consequences. The validity of the current schedule can be attacked on the basis of adverse consequences, or defended on the basis of positive consequences, but it cannot be defended simply on the basis of its existence.

We could, of course, chronically torture the inmates to achieve a similar effect, but we have decided that execution is more humane than torture.

When we abandoned torture in favor of simple execution, we adjusted the schedule of penalties. We may do so again if we desire.

If we cannot be confident in any empirical assertion, don't you think it is best to err on the side of conservatism, and assume that the State is not entitled to deprive any individual of life unless it is absolutely necessary to do so?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News