afr0byte
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,364
- Reaction score
- 253
- Location
- A blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Support, in this instance, means government assistance. When an activity is subsidized you generally get more of it.
Yes, I'm OK with government assistance.
Wouldn't you rather know where the families are?
What do you mean "know where the families are?"
:doh This conversation is going nowhere fast or slow, for that matter...
Provide more information. I'll give you an answer. Knowing where the families went could mean many things.
Where did your support come from while growing up? Was it the government or your family? We're off topic, but what the hell...
Exactly...
Mine came from my family. Not everyone has a family to support them (or at least one that can/is willing), hence government assistance.
Well said my friend. Now I don't have to explain my point of view.The goal of the justice system is to protect society ... Not to Punish sins. No one has the right to take a life, and no one has the right to judge whether or not someone has a right to live, the point is to make sure society is protected.
And while I may not disagree with your assessment on the overall health and activity of society; I don't think that translates into a higher death penalty rate.
As I said, more money, more innocents dead, no added benefit to society; no one in favor of the DP has yet been able to address that. Maybe the money, but you can't (or perhaps rather it has yet to be) address that without exacerbating the others.
In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant.
Don't you think it would be wise to address this issue rather than continuing to support it?
I never said we shouldn't try to solve the issue. Do you propose we let the child and their parent die, or resort to crime?
Society has decided the penalty is appropriate for certain crimes and is a benefit. A sentence isn't intended to benefit society; it's intended to punish the criminal...
I would suggest a policy where the family, be it direct or extended, is held responsible for a child's rearing, not you, not me, not anyone else...
I'm talking about social issues, primarily. You're OK with going back to segregation?
Society says a lot of things, not all of it appropriate. And while punishment is intended to punish, the use of the death penalty is illogical. LWOP is essentially the same punishment as DP without the cost, with the added bonus of giving ample time for innocent people to prove their innocence, and provides just as much security and protection as could be obtained through the DP.
If society wishes the illogical, is it still necessary to engage such? Remember, this is a Republic, not a pure democracy.
I would suggest a policy where the family, be it direct or extended, is held responsible for a child's rearing, not you, not me, not anyone else...
I know it! So stop reacting emotionally. Wanting to kill people is the pinnacle of being over emotional! :mrgreen:
Segregation is self-imposed, in many cases, because people like to be around people like themselves. Upward mobility hasn't been a problem for a long time for those that strive for a better life, no matter what color they are. We have laws that guarantee fair housing, as an example. Would you believe that any professional athlete or movie star would be told where they could live? If they have the money, they live where they feel comfortable... around people like themselves, IMO. .
Oh boy, this opens a whole new discussion...
We now more resemble a country ruled by unelected jurists rather than any form of republic...
Indeed it is. Most arguments I see in favor of the DP are rather emotional. It doesn't consider the pitfalls of the system, the cost not only in dollars but in human life, the proper constraints of government, and the necessity for the DP in our modern society.
OK, and again, what about those that don't have family that are willing? It'd be ridiculous to require parents to support their kids in to their 30s+.
Deontological Ethics... it has nothing to do with emotion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?