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: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (2125)	1/22/2001 8:29:56 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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. My feeling is that the same purpose can be achieved by permanent incarceration, and that government should not be allowed to wield more force than is required to achieve a given purpose. It must be recalled that if we allow the death penalty we create the possibility that an irrevocable punishment may someday be imposed on an innocent. If we can accomplish the same purpose without this risk, why not do it? What evidence do you have to suggest that our society would be more stable and safer without the death penalty? I don't think any is needed. The issue here, as in any case where we consider allowing the government to wield coercive force, is not why the government should not be allowed to wield that force, but why it should be allowed to. In the absence of any convincing reason to allow the government to use force, we should presume that it should not be allowed to use it.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (2125)	1/22/2001 12:56:11 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

What evidence do you have to suggest that our society would be more stable and safer without the death penalty? bland is asking for a proof of a negative here. I could similarly pose a question about chicken sacrifices and stable societies. I think that the only argument that makes sense for this pro-DP approach is the single case of a recidivist (there are none). But life-with-possibility-of-parole nulls this single case or at least makes it pretty remote. There is always at least some chance that you've got the wrong guy (in the majority of non-obvious cases, in fact). Most of your clear-cut examples would be hard-pressed to trigger the special circumstances (like rage killing or psychotic killers) who would not be eligible for DP anyway by means of no premeditation or diminished capacity. Even if you are a utilitarian (as I am) this can simply be reduced to a financial resource issue. If you aren't having the government offing people, you will get less vigorous defenses, lower appeal rates and a higher conviction rate. Simple bang-for-the-buck. And there is the moral benefit of the "Ooops-factor". You can redress mistakes - hard to do when the person is dead.