View Single Post
Old 11-06-2006, 10:50 PM   #37
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Yes, Sam, we are very different and the feeling is mutual.
You're "very glad" that you would kill someone who is not capable of doing harm?

Why should it bother you that someone who would kill, or be responsible for ordering so many deaths, might be executed?
I'd ask why it doesn't bother you to kill a person that poses no further danger. I have the same problem with those who support the death penalty in any form. They're already in custody, they cannot do anything, where is the justification?

Some actions warrant more severe punishments than others.
And in this case that punishment's purpose is solely and simply revenge. There's no other reason - there's no deterrent for other people, you've even said that yourself. Sure, he won't be able to commit those acts in the future... but wait, he's already in jail and can't do them anyway. I don't think that revenge is a justifiable reason to kill someone.

We're not talking lifting a few candybars or boosting a car. Should I take from this that you believe all the Nazis who were hanged after Nuremberg should have instead been left to rot in Spandau prison?
You may. I've also opposed killing Milosevic when he was in jail, same deal.

I want to say "Duh!" w/regard to your point about inflamed passions b/c we're talking about the middle east. Regardless of SH's final sentence, there will be problems. The problems won't end b/c SH is spared. If he is, it will be to a prison in Iraq, not the US, and that will likely become a lightening rod for increased attacks by sunnis looking to break him out of the klink. If he's spared, it's just as likely that the shia and kurds will be verrry POed and would stir up trouble. SH's fate is a Catch-22. So, as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason not to execute him.
So far as I'm concerned, all paths being equal, I'd choose the path that involves the least destruction. Why would you actively seek to kill people when there's no difference in the choices? Oh, that's right. Vengeance.

As I wasn't addressing the question of deterence w/regard to others, your point is irrelevant. Life in prison is no guarantee he won't get out (ie escape) or that he couldn't cause problems from within jail.
You can say the same about any criminal in jail for life. We should just kill 'em all. After all, they might get out. Yes, that was sarcasm.

You can solve him causing problems in jail by simply not allowing him the freedom to create such situations.

As to the whole money thing, it's not a question of whether we've got enough money, but rather if he's worth the expenditure of funds that couldn't be put to better use elsewhere. The DoD might have the cash, but it'd be better spent on ammo and spare parts.
Ah, I see. The DoD needs another bomb to use. I'm not convinced.

I want to see someone give me a reasonable explanation of how this act of vengeance is justified. I don't want to hear "he killed them, so he deserves it now." I know that part. I want to know why people think it is acceptable to practice vengeance in the first place.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: