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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (849647)	4/13/2015 2:25:14 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575154

Of course my position is a moral one. That should have been obvious from the get-go. The cost of keeping someone on death row for 20 years stems from the conflict between the desire for "ultimate justice" and the morality of killing someone in custody. If we didn't have to worry about the moral side of the argument, then we should just kill them quickly and save money. But of course we have to worry about the morality of haphazardly killing those in custody. Hence I wonder why we should even bother with this desire for "ultimate justice." It seems too much like vengeance, and that goes against my beliefs. The only difficulty with keeping them alive is the chance that they'll escape while in custody, but like I said before, that chance also exists when they remain on death row for too long. So once again we're back to the question of "kill them quickly" or don't even bother, and in that case, the moral choice is clear to me. Morality is absolute. There is no cost or risk consideration. It's either wrong or it's not. Al