Quilla
Female
O_____________OWrong again!
O_____________OWrong again!
it's a legal and rational issue.
it's not about "inmates feelings"
maybe they would prefer dp (but I'm not so sure....) but you can't do laws based on people preferences
I never brought up the "inmate feelings".. only that the will to live their life in a prison I find amazing.. and I actually could care less about their feelings, I'm pro-victim. not the liberal way of being pro-criminal.
They do create laws based on people preferences, d.p is one of them, gun laws are another, so are the creation of the ******* laws, we elect we our government and those we put into office who create laws based on feelings all the time, California is a good example of this..
How are your laws created in China? Do you have a choice to Vote for d.p or no dp and can those laws be overturned by the People who Vote?
When was the last vote on the death penalty, out of interest?
Does anyone know why this is a state law but a federal crime?
He could have stayed in Prison without execution and he would not have murdered the 7 victims you speak of. Not a good argument for the death penalty.Google Kenneth McDuff. He was put on death row in the 60's. Then it was abolished so he went to Life in prison. Some where along the line somebody thought he paid his debt and was released. So malizia, why don't you go explain to the families of his next 7 to 9 women he murdered after being released because they would still be alive today if he was executed the first time when he should have been.
But he already didn't stay in prison and he murdered 7 more women. Your argument doesn't even make sense.He could have stayed in Prison without execution and he would not have murdered the 7 victims you speak of. Not a good argument for the death penalty.
I'm not sure that clarity is something I'm going to find on this topic.
Thank you though, I was confused about the Boston bomber as I was sure that Massachusetts didn't have capital punishment.
So subboy you are saying if we PRETEND he didn't already get released back then, the 7 women that are NOW laying in their graves are really still alive in your PRETEND world. Hmmm, interesting. Well lets see, if McDuff had been executed when he was on Death Row the FIRST TIME, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have killed again. Don't you think so?He could have stayed in Prison without execution and he would not have murdered the 7 victims you speak of. Not a good argument for the death penalty.
I'm not sure I understand the intent of this last Q: "explain the consequences of an innocent person being executed".
It's pretty obvious what the consequences are, isn't it? Life, in general, is full of consequences, however ... driving a car, flying in a plane, the exploration of space, sky diving ... etc, the list goes on and on; all unretractable. Surely you wouldn't abstain from these activities, or other high risk activities, due to the risk of life. As valuable and precious a person's life is, a life is miniscule to the overall "big picture".
I think a more proper question would be "under what conditions" would you consider taking one's life? If there was 100% proof of that person's guiltiness, and the crime committed was horrific enough, would that be sufficient to apply a death sentence? Maybe read up on Attila The Hun ... would he qualify? Certainly you wouldn't consider tossing him into the prison system with their exercise rooms, color TV's, ect and simply shaking the "no, no" finger at him, would you?
What about a terrorist who opens a vial of anthrax in a crowded subway or on top of a building during rush hour?
For a very small number of criminals the death sentence is necessary, and, it should be quick, it should be efficient, and it should be made public .
Then your argument is with "the current system" not with the death sentence, itself. Again, IF the evidence was 100% of proof of guiltiness, and the criminal offense horrific enough ... Can you honestly say there is NO situation in which the death sentence could or should be applied? I don't think so, and I'd bet neither do you....and if you get it wrong in the current system which is far from 100% certain? That is what we're actually talking about isn't it? Not an academic moral argument but a very real practical one.
Then your argument is with "the current system" not with the death sentence, itself. Again, IF the evidence was 100% of proof of guiltiness, and the criminal offense horrific enough ... Can you honestly say there is NO situation in which the death sentence could or should be applied? I don't think so, and I'd bet neither do you.