|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 30, 2011 1:51:39 GMT -5
I'm not trying to say "yay capital punishment!", I'm point out that if the big reason we imprisoned people was to keep them from re-offending, summary execution would be a far faster and more permanent means to that end. Since we don't do that, there must be other reasons we lock people up. Vengeance is just one of them. That's some rather backwards reasoning. Execution is a pointless step that's a waste of resources and energy. Locking someone up is all that's necessary to keep them out of society. As has been pointed out, in areas with no capital punishment, there are significantly less murders than there are in areas with capital punishment. Here, let me turn that logic around you. Very easily as a matter of fact. "I'm point out that if the big reason we executed people was to keep them from re-offending, permanent imprisonment would be a far safer and less wasteful means to that end. Since we don't do that, there must be other reasons we kill people. Vengeance is just one of them." And killing for vengeance makes us no better than the criminals we kill. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 30, 2011 2:15:27 GMT -5
Usually I'm for capital punishment. But for this guy being locked in a tiny cell for the rest of his god-forsaken life (heheh... see what I did there?) seems the best punishment for him. Let him see how he did nothing to change Norway how he wanted. Let him see his acts did nothing in the way that he wanted them to.
That will be the best punishment of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 30, 2011 5:19:13 GMT -5
But if you know someone (such as Dahmner or Hindley) won't be rehabilitated by prison and that they will use their time in prison to manipulate people and thus cause more suffering to the families of their victims (or even surviving victims), what good does keeping them alive do? Because sometimes innocent people are mistaken for criminals. I know that, I was one of the ones who campaigned for the release of the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 7. But what about people like Hindley or Breivik where the evidence is so overwhelming as to be far beyond reasonable doubt? What possible benefit is there to keeping alive someone who will never see what they did was wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 30, 2011 5:20:47 GMT -5
The death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence (link), and others have pointed out that there is the possibility for error. Also, I absolutely love how you are declaring somebody impossible to rehabilitate without any sort of evidence. I had no idea you were such gifted psychologists you could accurately analyze somebody from snippets of news stories. And I didn't realise that you were so patronising. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 30, 2011 12:00:31 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, in areas with no capital punishment, there are significantly less murders than there are in areas with capital punishment. True, but can you show me a first world nation without capital punishment that has similar levels of (essentially) unrestricted and unregulated gun ownership? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 30, 2011 14:54:57 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, in areas with no capital punishment, there are significantly less murders than there are in areas with capital punishment. True, but can you show me a first world nation without capital punishment that has similar levels of (essentially) unrestricted and unregulated gun ownership? I suppose that's another correlation to take into account. Though what percentage of US murders involved a gun? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 30, 2011 15:39:13 GMT -5
True, but can you show me a first world nation without capital punishment that has similar levels of (essentially) unrestricted and unregulated gun ownership? I suppose that's another correlation to take into account. Though what percentage of US murders involved a gun? which indicates that handguns are the most common weapon involved in homicides, followed by knives and then other kinds of guns. |
|
