View Single Post
Old 11-07-2006, 01:38 AM   #39
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
You're "very glad" that you would kill someone who is not capable of doing harm?

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?

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.

You may. I've also opposed killing Milosevic when he was in jail, same deal. As to your opening shot.......well, you're merely putting words in my mouth. I was only saying that I very glad I'm not you either.

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.

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.

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.
Rather amusing. The main problem with your argument is the notion that he DEFINITELY will pose no further harm. Last I checked, crystal balls don't actually see into the future. The only guarantee a dangerous criminal seizes to be a threat is execution. That also goes to your point about the road to less destruction. Won't know for sure till we cross that rubicon what the damage will be, nor can we know the other since the die has been cast.

Not convinced of what, I wonder? That the DoD doesn't have the spare change or that the money couldn't be better used elsewhere? Also, never addressed the issue of deterence other than to say that the criminal in question couldn't become a recidivist.

Your sarcasm (as if it weren't obvious) is misplaced b/c I have not said I support a liberal use of capital punishment. As to your opening shot.......well, you're merely putting words in my mouth. I was only saying that I very glad I'm not you either.

I'm not sure anyone should try to rise to your bait about providing any explanation as your mind appears to be closed on this matter. Might as well try to convince an athiest of God's existence or a fundamentalist that the theory of evolution is actually fact.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: