1. I can absolutely guarantee one hundred percent that if a criminal is locked up under careful supervision with certain precautions taken, he/she will never, ever harm another person again. Talk about favorable odds!
2. I thought that family members are often able to give their opinions. I have heard of stories where a family member miraculously learns to somehow forgive for some unbelievable reason and so their statement is read to the judge and jury. But this is something I'm not actually 100% sure about so I will understand if you refuse to accept it.
3. Now you are simply going into one of my previous arguments of differentiating between reality/ideal systems (See above reply to JustAMom). In reality there are way too many faults and your proposing to eliminate the racial/gender/socio-economic factors by making everyone deserving of death, vulnerable to it. Yet the best evidence possible is DNA and even that has holes in it...a human works with the DNA (one state had a large number of cases of DNA tampering).
4. The revenge thing falls within my argument above regarding the ideal as well. In such a system, you know who did what and how they did it without one bit of error. Such a system is so perfect that it only could exist in a world so perfect that no crime exists. But your argument for liquidating someone in such a system is just as valid as someone for not...just an opinion no?
-Rudey
--I feel like I keep talking in this thread for no reason. Does anyone even care what I say? For shizzle I wish the pub was open past 1.
Quote:
Originally posted by KillarneyRose
Tracy's thoughts on the death penalty:
1. I can absolutely guarantee one hundred percent that if a criminal is executed, he/she will never, ever harm another person again. Talk about favorable odds!
2. I understand that criminal cases are considered crimes "against the people" and not against individuals, but I still feel that the victim's family should have some (much, actually) say in whether the death penalty is applied or not.
3. Some death penalty opponants feel that it is applied unfairly toward minorities and men and therefore should be abolished. I don't know if that's true; I have never read up on the subject. If it is, however, that indicates to me that it should be used more widely, not less.
4. Opponants also complain that it's state sponsored revenge. I personally don't think revenge is that bad a thing but, hey, that's just me.
|