Like it or not either way the the government has blood on its hands in either scenario.
I'll apologize for accusing you of being in favor of mass murderers that was an emotional reaction to being dogpiled and it was wrong. I'm sorry
Now you should apologize for calling me a troll. Think my position is stupid all you fucking want but I'm being completely sincere in thinking that people in favor of releasing 'rehabilitated' mass murderers aren't being logically consistent about their concerns about innocent bloodshed.
Nope. If someone serves their time and is released the government isn't responsible for the crimes they may commit.If they release someone on a life sentence with parole and that person kills someone the parole board has blood on their hands for releasing a dangerous person back into society.
If they release someone on a life sentence with parole and that person kills someone the parole board has blood on their hands for releasing a dangerous person back into society when they should have been kept locked up where they belong.
Only if they had reason to believe the person was a danger to others. If they genuinely believed the person was rehabilitated then no, they really don't. It's nowhere near as black and white as you're trying to make it. And it's still completely incomparable to executing innocent people.Impressive, every word in that post was wrong.
Impressive, every word in that post was wrong.
Nope.Yes. You clearly don't give a shit about innocent people being killed and are clwarly concern trolling about the government killing people. You're not in favor of protecting innocent life you're just anti execution. You'll never hear from me again because you can't make a good argument in your favor and you fail to back up your claims with anything of value.
Yes. You clearly don't give a shit about innocent people being killed and are clwarly concern trolling about the government killing people. You're not in favor of protecting innocent life you're just anti execution.
You'll never hear from me again because you can't make a good argument in your favor and you fail to back up your claims.with anything of value.
Whether someone should be released back into free society is not related to whether the government should kill them, the whole argument is a false dichotomy.No but it is hypocritical to be against the death penalty because innocent people could be killed and in favor of mass murderers getting released from prison when they could go and kill innocent people.
I think it's justified in extreme cases, but they need to be pretty extreme. Someone like the Christchurch shooter for example, someone like that will likely never reform, nor do they really deserve the chance. That's the kind of case where death penalty is justified.The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison (and not for stupid reasons we could cut, no expense can or should ever be spared to make sure no innocent people are executed), the issue isn't that no one deserves to die, it's that there is no real benefit to killing people who are already locked up in prison.
I am, however, completely in favor of prison sentences lasting until reform is pretty certian, rather than just fixed periods. At least for violent or significant sexual offences.
No but it is hypocritical to be against the death penalty because innocent people could be killed and in favor of mass murderers getting released from prison when they could go and kill innocent people.Please show some direct quotes from people in this topic who want mass murderers simply released into the public.
If you're against the former but not the latter you're not against innocent people being killed. You're against execution and concern trolling about innocence.
There are people who deserve to die, but nobody should be empowered to deliver it, least of all the state.Couldn't have phrased it better.
It's weird the same people that don't trust the government to do banal things like collect taxes and build roads are usually gung ho about having the government kill its own citizens.Yeah, I'll never understand the "government should only exist for security" crowd. If you can't trust the government to do small stuff, how the hell are you cool tasking them with extremely serious matters?
For what it's worth I don't think a civilized nation state needs capital punishment, Europe seems to do fine without it.
People who we know are beyond a shadow of a doubt completely guilty.
Yeah, I'll never understand the "government should only exist for security" crowd. If you can't trust the government to do small stuff, how the hell are you cool tasking them with extremely serious matters?Saying the government should only control and punish people but never help is basically an open request for tyranny.
i'm not in favor of abolishing it completely, but i do think it is in heavy need of reform and better implementation. i believe some crimes are so heinous that the person who committed them has effectively forfeited their right to life.This. Timothy McVeigh is the example I always go to. Dude wasn't going to be rehabilitated, he fully believed he was in the right. Why keep him around?
This. Timothy McVeigh is the example I always go to. Dude wasn't going to be rehabilitated, he fully believed he was in the right. Why keep him around?
Because we should be better than him.And it's more humane to lock him in prison for the rest of his existence?
And it's more humane to lock him in prison for the rest of his existence?
This. Timothy McVeigh is the example I always go to. Dude wasn't going to be rehabilitated, he fully believed he was in the right. Why keep him around?Because the system that would allow us to get rid of him is broken and results in the deaths of innocents.
Because the system that would allow us to get rid of him is broken and results in the deaths of innocents.Oh I absolutely agree on this aspect. Our system is fucked. I speaking more in the academic sense here. No one should be executed while there is even a slight question of innocence. Which is why it should be reserved for those like McVeigh, Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and their ilk.
I understand that people think some individuals deserve to be executed. I frequently here about executions and hardly lose sleep over them, because it was very well established that they were a bad, unredeemable person. But the instrument that allows for executions to take place is broken. It kills innocent people. And that system can never be fixed. There will never be a system put in play that can ethically guarantee that only the guilty are executed. And as long as there is a non-zero chance that an innocent can be murdered by the government, I cannot be in favor.
i'm not in favor of abolishing it completely, but i do think it is in heavy need of reform and better implementation. i believe some crimes are so heinous that the person who committed them has effectively forfeited their right to life.
I think it's less about "us" and more about the victim's family :)Should it be about the victim's family? Should they get a say in what happens?
Oh I absolutely agree on this aspect. Our system is f***ed. I speaking more in the academic sense here. No one should be executed while there is even a slight question of innocence. Which is why it should be reserved for those like McVeigh, Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and their ilk.
Second and third option. It's expensive, innocent people get executed, it doesn't act as a deterrent... and it's wrong.