Re: death penalty



Ron Hunter [rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx] said:
Yellow wrote:
Ron Hunter [rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx] said:
I only advocate it for certain types of crimes, and for those who have
been sentenced to life, and then kill someone else, either in prison, or
after/during an escape.
Do individuals have a right to use lethal force to defend themselves?

Not really. You are allowed to use no more "force" than "required" which
means if you kill someone you will quite likely end up in prison.

But don't forget, we don't have guns as a rule so the chances of killing
someone is actually greatly reduced.


Really? I know several ways to kill someone with my bare hands, and
have any number of weapons with which I could kill someone in the house,
most of them in the kitchen. I suppose you aren't allowed to keep
knives in your houses? Are hands prohibited too?

LOL! Remind me never to piss you off! :-)

Maybe you could kill someone with your bare hands but plenty, including
my good self, most certainly could not.

<snip>
One thing can certainly be said about the death penalty, it does prevent
recidivism.

If you get the right people, yes it stopped them doing it again, but so
does locking them up. And locking up means you can let them out with a
monster apology when you get the wrong people.

Locking them up doesn't always stop them. Look in the internet archives
about a group called 'The Texas Seven', and see why I favor the death
penalty for this type of criminal.

I read Wiki for a quick outline and I do not see at all how that case
cements the need for the death penalty. Do you mean you think they
should have been killed before they escaped? Because killing them now is
simply revenge.
.


Quantcast