Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (81775)	6/14/2000 7:07:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

My opposition to capital punishment has nothing whatsoever to do with compassion. I have no objection to assistance to victims, but a lifetime subsidy seems a bit over the top, unless the crime caused some permanent disability. <edit> If we execute a criminal, should we provide the victim or family of the victim with the same amount required to complete the execution process?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (81775)	6/14/2000 8:44:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You do not seem to understand. You do NOT pay to house criminals because you are compassionate. You pay for their care to keep THEM away from YOU. You could pay MORE to kill them (which in economic terms is silly) and then of course you run a risk of error that simply cannot be redressed. If we were compassionate we wouldn't be putting people in cages where they are continually brutalized by things like ass rapings. Prison is not the compassionate retreat you seem to think it is. And as stated above prison isn't about compassion- it's about segregating the dangerous. Why would you want to pay more to kill them? Why would you think victims deserve society to compensate them? In the grand scheme of things EVERYTHING is societies fault- but I see no real reason why (unless you compensate all injuries) society need pay for the works of criminals. Indeed the victims are getting something of a windfall, and that at the hands of a person violating the law. This would be a social policy nightmare. edit- I think you think that the being against the death penalty is something you DO for criminals. For me it is something I am doing for myself. As a great advocate of personal freedom and the rights of man, and of the precious nature of life, I never could really fit the death penalty in very well with my other beliefs. I can fit in opposition much better. It is for ME that I oppose it- because I do not want to sanction murder in my country. Not by criminals and not by the State. It has nothing to do with compassion, really, except compassion for myself, and the integrity I need to feel in my beliefs.

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (81775)	6/15/2000 2:22:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

It costs the same to house any felon. Further, with the "three strikes and you're out" law, we house them forever. This includes everyone from career shoplifters, flashers, drug addicts, on up the line to murderers. To be consistent, you should want them all executed. It would save the states a LOT of money if every felon was executed. Get rid of appeals, too, that would save a lot of money. And while you're at it, get rid of court-appointed lawyers, that will save money, too. How about this? Get rid of trials. If the cops arrest someone suspected of a felony, the cops should execute the arrestee. Just think of the money it will save. Wait - even better. Let ordinary citizens execute people they believe have committed felonies. Saves money on cops.