Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fruit Smoothies
Mar 28, 2004

The bat with a ZING
It sickens me when I know that a murderer gets to live despite having committed a terrible crime. It is a totally unfair, totally infuriating, totally heart-breaking situation. It's because of that empathy and sympathy towards the victim, that I never want anyone to have to go through what they did. Not even the murderer.

There are many, many people who should never have been born, but unfortunately they were. They were born with bad genetics, or into a bad environment, or into bad morals, or into a bad religion, or a bad cult. I can't see how killing them rather than rehabilitating / imprisoning them offers even one, single advantage over the latter.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fruit Smoothies
Mar 28, 2004

The bat with a ZING

twodot posted:

Why the double standard? There's a bunch of activities the government does which definitely kill innocent people sometimes. I've never heard anyone argue that the government either needs to acquire perfect knowledge, or Ultra Proof, whatever we call it, that what it's doing won't kill an innocent or not perform the activity for anything else. There's trade offs certainly. The fact that the police occasionally murder innocent people doesn't mean we should throw out the concept of patrols. And very arguably the innocent person murder rate of the death penalty is high enough to not justify whatever benefit people think it has (very arguably it actually has no benefit, but if you thought that you wouldn't need to argue about standards of proof). But I don't see why the government needs to meet an impossible standard in whether an innocent person dies as a result of the death penalty versus any other activity that can foreseeably kill innocent people.

I think the difference here, is there isn't really a better system of doing police patrols; accidents and mistakes will happen. However, there is a better way of handling justice, and that is to not use the death penalty.

Fruit Smoothies
Mar 28, 2004

The bat with a ZING

fantastic in plastic posted:

The central symbol in the dominant religion in the United States of America is the blood sacrifice of an innocent man for the purposes of cleansing the sins of the guilty. I doubt the death penalty will be going anywhere any time soon.

Although the whole point of this was to remove the need for any further loss of human / animal life. Not that the right have any grasp of the true message of the bible.

  • Locked thread