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 : Long Live The Death Penalty! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (153)	1/14/2003 1:57:28 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 828

"Execute Andrea Yates Countering Simplistic Arguments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An editorial in my local paper today made the usual simplistic argument against the death penalty. The editorial staff, however, made the mistake of trying to use Andrea Yates to illustrate the argument. "If we give her the death penalty," the column read, "the body count goes from five to six. Killing begets more killing." This, of course, is simplistic and irrational. The usual (and equally simplistic, when you come down to it) argument to counter this line of thought is: "If kidnapping is wrong, are we wrong to imprison kidnappers to teach them a lesson?" The death penalty is not a deterrent. The death penalty is, quite simply, a means of removing from society -- permanently -- those human beings who have proven themselves unfit to live within it. Furthermore, it is a means of removing those individuals from every society, preemptively. Obviously, we must not administer it lightly, for the mistaken application of the death penalty is a permanent and unforgivable error. If I was in charge of these matters, I would never apply the death penalty in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. For that reason I actually oppose the death penalty, philosophically, as it is generally applied within our legal system now. The Yates case -- and many cases of Capital Murder -- is not a case of circumstantial evidence, however. That she methodically drowned her children is a matter of record and not in dispute. If she is "insane," or was "temporarily insane" at the time, treating her to "cure" her would be both risky and cruel. If we did cure her, a "sane" human being could never live with the crimes she has committed. And if we cannot "cure" her, she remains little more than a rabid animal -- an unpredictable creature who cannot be trusted, ever, for there is no telling what other inhuman acts her mental instability might prompt her to commit. The death penalty, in cases of horrific crimes such as those of Andrea Yates, is a matter of both justice and remediation. It eliminates from society those who have proven themselves too monstrous to exist within it or any other community. If it was up to me, I would execute Andrea Yates." objectivistcenter.org

To: marcos who wrote (153)	1/14/2003 10:43:57 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 828

I guess we have not communicated if you read anything in my post that implied "vigilante justice"..... I am all for due process of law and an appeal process that works to eliminate any doubts and shadows in the case.....There are many cases where there is proof beyond any doubt who the guilty party is and to delay the process for years is foolhardy and needless.....Those cases should be handled in a more efficient manner... If I kill a rattlesnake in the back yard....it is not an emotional act....it is a practical one....