Antero wrote: matthew wrote: krs wrote:
matthew wrote:I simply don't see why, say, a convicted, remorseless, brutal serial rapist/killer should not receive the death penalty because another guy in another case might receive unduly.
Your reasoning is still fucked and totally backward. That remorseless, brutal serial rapist/killer
should not receive the death penalty, exactly because
it might also be handed down to a person who is innocent.
I don't personally believe a death penalty should be use in any instance...but, using your original [low] moral bar (it is ok for the state to kill people), the logic in your argument still fails.
So because of a "might", it should be outlawed?......and not have full retribution for people who are convicted of brutal, heinous murders?
You would permit grave injustices to go without full redress because of a "might"........that is more than backwards...it's senseless.
Conceiving of the execution as "redress" is your first error. Conflating retribution and redress is the second. Imagining that a murder could actually be
redressed at all is the third.
You're mincing my words and trying to turn this into a word game. I'm not going to turn this thread into the atheism thread where we spend a million pages debating the shades of meaning of a word. Let me put what I mean into plain, close-rhyming language: "You do the crime, you pay the fine."
And the idea that retribution is such a societal imperative that it in and of itself justifies the commission of a similarly grave crime against an innocent party...
No one's saying "execute the innocent". Who's saying that? Where are you getting this?
Like I said before......outlawing capital punishment because someone innocent "might" be wrongly executed is senseless in term of the ability to effectively administer justice which fits certain heinous crimes (AND IN HELPING TO PREVENT OTHER SUCH FUTURE CRIMES)......and quite frankly, a ludicrous point of view. Again, why not just do away with the criminal justice system itself.....someone "might" be wrongly convicted. Come on.....I mean, the guy who administers the lethal injection might take secret pleasure in doing such, but that doesn't undermine the fact that the person being executed is receiving just desert for, say, raping and murdering little children.
Look, it's not "revenge-obsessed" to have someone be punished for their crime. They're in debt and they have to repay that debt. When you commit certain types of murder, you should pay with your life. The option for capital punishment should be in place, utilized effectively and correctly, and thereby make it a REAL DETERRENCE TO FUTURE CRIMES OF THE SAME TYPE, ABOVE ALL.
It's probable that someone is either confused or quite dishonest in their characterizations of people based on stereotypes.