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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (103170)	2/4/2009 10:55:15 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543718

Are we still missing?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (103170)	2/4/2009 11:29:30 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543718

<RE: Death Penalty> My reasoning led me to ultimately reject it. When a youth, I accepted it for utilitarian reasons. But upon deeper consideration, I found it is expensive and non-uniformly applied. Life without parole is cheaper, and if you get it wrong, there is the possibility for compensation. This is the counter to the "utilitarian argument". Ultimately, I looked at the way government runs most things, and concluded that they would do poorly at this as well. Short term benefits are overwhelmed by the relatively large portion of the people that it is applied to incorrectly, later being overturned. If I proposed killing head lice in a school and the 5% of the kids who supposedly had lice but didn't, died, I'd want to find a different method of lice control. This is the trump of the "public health" argument for the death penalty. It is non-selective and non-reversible. There just aren't that many first degree murderers in society as a percentage. I don't think death penalty is a big factor in second degree. At least that is the instruction for the jury - the guy or gal was in an agitated state and was not cognizant of their action. If they planned it, then it is not 2nd degree. If they thought well I'll just get 10 years in jail and I'm not going to care about that, then it is not 2nd degree because they considered the consequences of their action. This is a "not effective" trump to the "utilitarian" argument. Finally, we are alone amongst first world countries that do it - this is the (world) "community standard" argument. We shouldn't do it because our peers don't - makes us worse than our peers in the world community. Unless, of course, we could consider China, Russia and India our peers. We didn't use to.