I don't see that any of these examples have anything to do with the matter under discussion, which is whether the execution of criminals serves any tangible, practical, beneficial purpose.
They have paid the highest possible penalty for their crime. Bland believes there are crimes that merit such a penalty. Pure and simple. That is why he chose the example he chose.
Pure, simple, and irrelevant. Government , IMO, is not here to determine what "merits" what, or who "deserves" what. These determinations are not within the competence of government. Government is here to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, and I see no point in giving government any more power than the minimum necessary to achieve that goal.
Is there any tangible evidence to suggest that a society that kills criminals a more stable place, a safer place, a better place than a society that does not? What practical, tangible, measurable benefit does execution provide to compensate for the possibility that we may someday allow government to kill an innocent person? |
