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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (16564)	6/12/2001 9:34:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Killing one person is bad enough. But if you then kill many more people, isn't that really much worse? You don't agree with this premise? James, my posts on this subject have been observations of how death sentences seem to come about, or not. None of that was my opinion on what should be, only an explanation of what seems to happen. If you want to talk about what should be criteria for the death penalty, I don't know how much I can contribute since I don't favor the death penalty. I'm not strongly opposed to it either, but I'd prefer we not execute. No, I don't think killing 186 makes a person less immoral than than killing three. I think the public is misguided when it gets more exercised over a huge death toll from a single event than over the same death toll spread out over many small events. I don't think the crime of murder is any more or less if the victims are targets or collateral damage, although I do tend to cringe more from "senseless" murders. And I don't think insanity, particularly "temporary insanity," makes one less guilty. Those are my opinions on the points you made on what should be. Karen