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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2121)	1/22/2001 4:42:53 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

>> 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. << In the main, bland whole-heartedly agrees. That's a quintessentially conservative position. Bland just sees no reason to feel that allowing the execution of especially violent criminals is going too far. The purpose of executing a criminal is to unequivocally remove that criminal from participation in human society, human contact, and human life in any way, shape or form. That is its tangible, practical purpose. What evidence do you have to suggest that our society would be more stable and safer without the death penalty? Pointing to Britain or elsewhere doesn't provide any proof at all that eliminating the death penalty in the United States would somehow transform our society into a safer, happier, more civil place to live. They are two different societies. There is more religious violence, for instance, in Britain and Ireland than in the United States. Read bland's original post on the subject again. There are criminals who simply are not innocent. There are cases where there is, and can be, absolutely no shadow of a doubt. The death penalty is perfectly appropriate, as far as bland is concerned, in such unambiguous situations. Bland is not suggesting it be applied indiscriminantly. But he sees no reason to feel queasy or squeamish or haunted by it in cases where some idiot with a gun walks into an office full of innocent people and starts randomly killing them in full view of surviving witnesses.