FuguNabe wrote:So you're looking at moral point of view? Then tell me if their crime is/was morally correct?
Obviously not, and I never said that. But why should the state reduce itself to the criminal's level by doing the exact same thing that they do by taking away a human's life? What could possibly be the benefits of it? Sure, it takes criminals off the streets, but prisons do that in a more humane way. And I've already pointed out why prisons are a much more fiscally responsible choice between the two options.
FuguNabe wrote:Law against crime should to be 'draconian' as you would put it to prevent future crimes if possible. It should examplify to the would be criminal the harsh consequences of crime.
How analytical of a person do you think these punishments are aimed towards that you would think they would have enough common sense to realize the consequences of their actions? Obviously, the lot of them have serious mental disorders, no doubt about it. But do you think that any punishment, any punishment
at all, regardless of its severity, would be enough to deter them from taking part in their criminal acts if they would be so commited to do them in spite of the threat of death in the first place?
FYI, draconian
is a word, so I don't know why you had to put it 'like this'.
FuguNabe wrote:I am correct to say it's not murder if it's justified by the law considering the definition of murder. It stands well on the basis if there's a majority vote for it. If it doesn't then... oh well.
I know that by a textbook definition of murder, then yes, you'd be right in saying that it's not considered "murder". However, there is no difference between the conclusion to a court-ordered death sentence and a murder on the streets, and that's the point that I was trying to make. Who cares what we call it? You can dress up the wording any way you'd like, but either way, they each result in the taking of a life.
FuguNabe wrote:This is the type of mentality through the damn prison so why on Earth would you want someone who's going to come out thinking they more hardcore than ever. They get out, the monitoring on these guys slacken then they are usually back to the same crap again. As for influencial criminals they can just be working from their new office from within the prison cell. So tell me it's worthwhile for the people working and living normal lives to be pretty much be paying for these. That's where my point of view stems where criminals with harsh crimes (murder(s), drug dealing, serial rape offender, leading crime syndicate, etc) deserves death sentences no questions asked upon being found guilty.
I'll tell you why people should be paying for the court cases for life-long prison sentences as soon as you tell me why people should be paying
more for court cases for the use of capital punishment, despite the fact that each have just as much of a possibilty of finding the accused criminal innocent and each will potentially keep criminals off the streets permanently if they are found guilty.
By the way, I advocate life sentences for criminals that you feel should be put to death. That way it has the effect of death penalty without putting blood on the hands of the courts. I do not feel that they should be set back on the streets, although from your post I can tell you assumed that about me.
FuguNabe wrote:As for you bringing in slavery. That's another topic. I don't believe in that. Capital punishment and slavery are two different things. The topic here is asking everyone's opinion on capital punishment on criminals. My stand is that capital punishment would be great and I've merely expressed my thoughts on the matter over my few posts in this topic.
Of course it's another topic. I brought it up to create a blatant comparison between the two, and to show how past immoral deeds have been commited, yet were legally defended.
/b/lackup has arrived.