Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:how is this relevant to /. (Score 4, Insightful) 308

the world isn't free. If you want an education, figure out how to pay for it. Maybe lots of loans for that basket weaving class.

Wow, americans straw manning universal education/health care arguments by the age old 'nothings free' -argument. How surprising.

We are already paying for it, dumb ass. We've just decided that it should be collectively and publicly funded because one needs not to look very far to understand that limiting education chances based on the income of the person/their family is not a solution.

I want my fellow citizens to be able to get higher education and health care and other base necessities of modern day life regardless of whether or not they were born to a rich family. And I want people to continue to graduate without student debt weighing them down so they can actually spend the money they make and thus help the economy. This system works, and has worked in here and across Europe for decades. it's never been free, but it's still cheaper, per person, than any of the privatized university models.

I'm paying for my past education and the education of the coming generations by paying across the board higher taxes than most people in say, the US- And I'm completely alright with that, as are most of the people here, so shut the fuck up.

Comment Re:how is this relevant to /. (Score 5, Interesting) 308

I get it that Torvalds went to school there etc, but this isn't any different than any other school that hundreds of other developers have gone to that have had staff cuts.

You clearly do not understand the context or the background to this, so allow me to explain why this is relevant. Firstly, the university of Helsinki is THE university here. Sure, we have a few other major ones and they're decent, but we're a nation of 5,4 million people, the university of Helsinki is the bedrock and pinnacle of our much praised educational system. Gutting it means they're making a huge dent in the higher education of the entire country. Secondly, the cuts are nationwide, they're cutting across the board from higher education, the university of Helsinki is just getting the hardest hit as it is the biggest.

But most importantly, this is about much more than the simple cuts themselves. This is about politicians fucking us over in every way imaginable and betraying their own principles on which they ran for the parliament in a record time. We had elections last year, and one of the biggest promises made by the winning centre-right coalition was that no matter how tough cuts they'd have to make, they'd stay off the education. Our current prime minister and minister of treasury even posed in twitter pictures with students with cards saying 'no cuts'.

35 days. It took 35 days from the elections to them start suggesting cuts. Then they introduced tuition fees for exchange students coming from outside the Union. Now, this raised concern since the worry was that once the concept of tuition fees has been introduced, the next step would be to start suggesting everyone should pay them. This is a major deal as universities have always been free to attend to for those who have the grades to get in. Without free universities, we likely wouldn't have risen from a fairly backwater nation that suffered a civil war and the 2nd world war to a first world post-industrialized welfare state in less than a century. Without free higher education it's likely we would never have produced people such as Torvalds, companies such as Nokia and Rovio etc. Free higher education is at the very core of what this nation is supposed to be built on, which is why it is in our constitution:

Section 16 - Educational rights

Everyone has the right to basic education free of charge. Provisions on the duty to receive education are laid down
by an Act.

The public authorities shall, as provided in more detail by an Act, guarantee for everyone equal opportunity to
receive other educational services in accordance with their ability and special needs, as well as the opportunity to
develop themselves without being prevented by economic hardship.
The freedom of science, the arts and higher education is guaranteed.

When they announced the cuts they promised they would never expand the tuition fees. Yet, unsurprisingly, one MP just proposed that today: the introduction of nationwide tuition fees and simultaneous cutting of student benefits. At the same time they cut the amount of corporate taxes MORE than they cut universities (the total combined cuts to education are about 600 million euros). They're literally trying to wipe their ass on the constitution that we have, pissing on a fundamental cornerstone of well being in our country, and lying through their teeth while doing so. They say they have to do these cuts to save the economy. But destroying the basis for all intellectual capital in this country is not going to do anything else than destroy the economy in the long term. But they do not seem to care. And to make matters worse, the universities appear to have given up any sort of resistance to this and are allowing this all top happen with very little protest.

In my life so far, never have I been so angry and sad at the same time, nor have I EVER felt this betrayed and fucked over by our elected representatives. They're a fucking national disgrace, and the sooner the opposition manages to get their heads out of their asses and get people riled up, the better. We can't take another 3 years of this, and I mean it, we cannot. The damage that would be done by baring even a single generatuon from accessing cost-free university education would be unfathomable. It must not happen.

Comment Re: Prediction (Score 3, Informative) 249

keep in mind a survey done a few months back showed 30% of Canadian subscribers watched the US site. Spread that around the world, it's significant.

As a Finn, I couldn't agree with you more. Netflix has shot up interest in VPN services across the board. The majority of my friends who use netflix here use a VPN to access the american catalog, myself included, because the Finnish Netflix selection is poor in comparison. However my friends are mostly male nerds in their 20s and 30s, so obviously there's selection bias. When F-secure launched their new service that included VPN, one of the main features people were talking about was the ability to easily watch Netflix and other streaming services as an 'american'.

I've been a continuous customer almost since Netflix launched here, but when this goes through I might have to halt the subscription, because I've seen pretty much everything worth watching on the Finnish side of Netflix, so it's just not worth the money anymore. It will not destroy the company but it will severely affect their business.

Comment Re:Hypocrisy (Score 1) 258

2015 years ago.

Lol. First of all, I was rounding the number because the ex act number of claimed years is irrelevant to the point that I was making, which is that there's no evidence that any of the supposed miraculous claims occurred. Do you obviously believe I am so stupid I don't know what year we're living in, or what the Gregorian calendar is supposedly based on? Really, are you that dense?

Secondly, if you had any clue as to how the timeline was actually derived back when the church was trying to calculate it, you'd know that the probable estimated birth date of Jesus is not in fact AD 1, but closer to AD 4-7. So not only is your logic of latching on to a rounded year figure dumb as fuck, you're also ignorant of the actual historical estimates of the guy you hold, without any evidence, to be the son of God.

Comment Re:Hypocrisy (Score 2) 258

2.18 billion is 10 decimal digits and you think God is a cat smiling and vanishing or whatever?

The number of people believing something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually is true.

The biblical claims of godhood/Jesus' supernatural origins and actions are without any historical or scientific evidence, so there's no reason whatsoever for a rational minded individual to take them as anything but fables and allegory, just like any other old myths.

This is not to say one cannot appreciate the teachings of the supposed character of Jesus, but again, just because you have 2 billion people believing that 2000 years ago the supernatural invisible ruler of the universe fathered himself from a virgin and then schemed to have himself executed as a sacrificial gift to himself to save us from the sin he himself implemented to begin with, does not mean any of this is true, empirical, or logical.

Comment Re:Similar to choosing an OS (Score 1) 146

I did none of the things you listed and I do not know where you got the idea I did. Of course we'll discover new sources of materials in all likeliness, but that doesn't mean it's a good strategy to simply always assume technology/new sources will solve the issue.

Take the oil for example: yes, it's entirely possible we'll figure out a way to survive once the viable sources of oil are extracted, in fact I'd even go on to say it's likely. However one does not get to logically jump from this to "peak oil is not a concern", when the fact is we currently do not have viable solutions for it that're proven effective on a global scale. There are certainly options with which research is being made, such as artificially creating oil from other materials, different sort of biofuels etc etc.. but none of these are as of yet at the level on which they can realistically replace the current oil industry. Hopefully they will be by the time the transition has to be made, but we don't get to declare that as of yet-

The ozone hole, is an appeal to authority. An authority that regularly makes false statements as demonstrated by my links.

No, it's based on observable science and measurements. If you think only a scientific source which has done 0 errors is trustworthy, then you can off hand discredit all science, because there is no such source. Again, as far as I know the data about the current status of the ozone layer, ie. the total diminishing of it having halted and the ozone layer slowly recovering, are things widely supported by climatologists. If you have actual data saying otherwise, please provide it and we can continue the discussion. Saying "these dudes have made mistakes before therefore this is wrong", without providing any sort of factual refutation of the data itself does not invalidate scientific research.

Simple question why is the ozone still there why does it still grow in the winter and shrink in the summer ?

Because like everything else in the climate, it too varies also based on weather. This shouldn't be that hard to grasp: it's not as if the scientists are claiming all changes in the ozone layer are caused by man made activity, but that our previous activity was making the dissipation of ozone worse. Seasonal variation is to be expected, but what we need to be looking for is the averages over time. Those were falling previously and have now stabilized with the banning of the ozone depleting chemicals, and are expected to rise back to their previous levels within a couple of decades.

Any reasonable examination you have to conclude it was always there and it wasn't noticed until people started studying the polar upper atmosphere in a way that would detect it.

No, any reasonable examination would conclude that we must not look at complex systems such as the climate/atmosphere as being only affected by weather or man made activity but rather understand that as both of those can and do release chemicals which affect the ozone layer over time, both of those can therefore affect its condition, a conclusion in fact supported by measurements and laboratory experiments.

Comment Re:Similar to choosing an OS (Score 0) 146

As for the population bomb, I tried to explain to you that I do not in fact, think that the population growth will lead to any sort of mass catastrophe. This is why I do not consider myself a Malthusian or neo-Malthusian. At the same time, I think it's sensible to recognize that the increase in population will unavoidably cause massive challenges especially in the oarts of the globe where it is most rapid. You can of course already find examples of this in densely populated areas: pollution, slums, etc.. these things are bound to get worse as we have more and more people concentrated on certain areas.

This should be obvious to anyone, and I do not think that alone makes one a Malthusian. My original point was that just because we haven't had mass starvation does not mean that the population growth is without its issues.

I like my science with less politics and less people screaming doom you must do this, that way so they can make money off of it.

Again, if you have data contradicting the things the report says about the ozone levels and the estimates I'll gladly look into it, but just saying "it's by the IPCC therey it must be false" is faulty logic and you know it.

So new sources of oil and oil products don't count because ?????

I didn't say the do not count. The original issue raised was peak oil, ie. the running out of natural deposits of oil. This is an undenianble fact for which we have to look for solutions. Artificially manufactured oil(s) are one of those possible answers, but not necessarily the best/only one.

The point was again that the original post was implying peak oil is not a nconcern, and I'm saying it is. Again, this does not mean I think it's an insurmountable issue, but it is something we need solutions on, as your link itself proves

Seriously you need to learn what a strawman is so you can build better ones.

I wasn't making a straw man, you just misunderstood what I was trying to argue. I

Comment Re:Similar to choosing an OS (Score 1) 146

My first thought is Malthus is into his third century of being wrong, but still people think it makes them look intelligent to wring their hands and repeat what he said.

Where did I say anything about Malthus? Malthus argued we'd run out of food, and that's proved to be wrong consistently for the majority of humans. I never said or argued that reaching 10 billion people will cause large amounts of people to die, but there's no doubt it'll cause issues. Increased need for energy and the rising standard of living across the globe present new challenges environmentally and economically.

To equivocate any such argument to Malthus and just waive it off is dishonest. It's not just about food or water - although both have their challenges in certain parts of the world - it's about trying to provide a decent standard of living for 10 billion people when we cannot even properly do it for 7. I'm not saying it's impossible, not by a long shot, but it's definitely a challenge.

As someone else commented the "Ozone Hole was there before we were using CFCs" We have cut our use down to nearly nothing and it is still there.
Someone who was objective, would have to come to the conclusion that it is a natural phenomena independent of CFC use.

This is just wrong. Certainly there are natural causes contributing to ozone depletion as well, but we know for a fact these chemicals increase the depletion. This is something that can and has been prioved in a lab, which is what lead to the ban to begin with. The reason it's still there is because it takes time for the chemicals we managed to pump into the atmosphere to clear out. But the depletion itself has largely stopped, and the situation is estimated to improve over time. Quoting the appropriate section of wiki:

"A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.

A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol."

The IPCC Report

You obviously have done little to no reading on the actual science behind ozone depletiona nd CFS if you think they have no connection.

Well why yes.

I'm well ware of the different processes and methods to manufacture oil from different sources, and those are certainly something to look into, but again, it doesn't negate the fact that natural deposits of fossil fuels are limited and we cannot ignore this. If anything it backs up my point: if we didn't need to worry about running out of oil, technologies such as this would not be investigated or needed.

Comment Re:Similar to choosing an OS (Score 1) 146

Population Bomb

The population of the world is still rising, and by any estimates will keep rising until at least 10 billion inhabitants, and the limited resources we have are not growing at an equal pace, so this is still an issue.

Ozone hole

Ozone depletion is a genuine threat, and the ozone hole is one of the few examples of environmental dangers that was actually tackled by agreeing globally to ban the use of CFS andf other ozone depleting gases. If it wasn't for these actions, we'd be facing a lot more issues with regards to added UV radiation.

Peak Oil

Unless you've found a endless source of oil, this too is still an issue. It makes no sense to ignore the fact that oil and other fossil fuels will inevitably run put when designing the long term fuel and energy policies around the world. Throwing one's arms up and going "Ha, see, this limited resource is not running out quite as quickly as we thought, no reason to worry about it then" is idiotic. Oil is a finite resource, and one we rely on heavily across a multitude of fields, so its scarcity is definitely something we need to plan ahead for.

So I don't get it, you listed 3 ongoing problems 1 of which has sort of been solved by adopting smarter policies in manufacturing and you expect this to prove that we shouldn't listen to science? What the fuck man?

Comment Re:Idiotic (Score 1) 591

So in cases where their is no doubt you feel it is okay?
Take the Boston Bomber for example.

No, I'm not, as like I said I do not believe the justice system should hold the power to kill anyone, as I believe even criminals have the right to be alive if they're successfully captured.

As I was trying to say arguments can be made for both sides.

Certainly they can, I just do not agree with the argumentation of the other side.

I never take joy in any death but I can see the need at times for such an event to happen.

As I said, in the form of the police having to use deadly force, certainly. Whereas the justice system, not so much.

Comment Re:Idiotic (Score 1) 591

So if a someone has taken hostages and has killed a few of them an officer shooting the gunman is immoral?

I was talking specifically about trials and the capital punishment. If you read my next response to him you'll note that I agree there are situations wherein use of lethal force is justified to neutralize someone who's an immediate threat to others around him.

This is an entirely different issue because we're talking about what to do with the people who have been caught and detained.

It can be argued that some people are to dangerous to risk ever letting out of the prison system or ever risk them escaping.

Yes, both of those thing can be argued, and the first one is most assuredly true in some cases. However, the main argument I've been making the whole time is that the existence of capital punishment creates a situation in which sooner or later innocent people will die at the hands of the state, because evn the lengthy appeals process is not perfect by any means.

To me, this alone is enough to keep the death penalty banned forever. I'll take the risk of a murderer escaping prison over the state accidentally killing someone who's done nothing wrong.

Comment Re:Idiotic (Score 1) 591

As to keeping someone alive simply on the off chance that there was a shadow of a doubt... again, I'm not imprisoning people at all unless I have confidence in the system.

At all.

Having confidence in the system is one thing, of course there needs to be confidence in the justice system. However, no model or system of justice is perfect. We know people get wrongly convicted. That's just a fact of being human, errors happen.

This is not something one can get rid of, so it needs to be taken into consideration when setting up the system. We know a certain percentage of people who end up in jail or in death row are innocent, and we have to account for this possibility somehow.

Now as I said, the only way to make absolutely sure no innocents ever get executed by the state is to not have executions at all. This is why it has become the norm of justice in the most of the rest of the world outside the US.

You either have confidence in the system or you don't.

Having confidence in the system does not mean one has to at the same time believe/assume and act as if the system is flawless and makes no erroneous judgements ever.

If you convict, then you need to own it. If you don't then let him go.

Yes, and if you later find out you've convicted wrongly, you need to equally own up to it and let him go. If you execute and execute wrongly, you've just killed an innocent man and there's no recourse you can offer him/her whatsoever.

Give him to me and if he did terrible things then there is a good chance I'm going to put him down. So... do you care about this precious human life enough to save it?

No I won't and yes I do. Which is precisely why we do not extradite people to states and nations in which they might face the capital punishment, and neither do most other countries in the European Union.

As to capital punishment being too expensive, not really. It only expensive because the cases have about a million appeals and people on death row draw it out endlessly even if they're guilty as sin because it means they stay alive longer.

How come then, even as a result of this massive process you have people who are innocent being released from death row? Clearly the system is dysfucntional in that even with the 'million appeals' it is not successful in rooting out all of the innocent people, and you want to make it simpler? Remember, all of these people have been convicted originally 'beyond reasonable doubt', and all of them were 'guilty as sin' before it was discovered that they actually weren't.

I'll wait 12 months AFTER conviction. That is generous and patient. I am agreeing to hold a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for 12 months on the chance that some new evidence will come up

Most of the people who have been released as innocent have been released far, far after 12 months in death row, so clearly drawing a line at 12 months will only serve to increase the amount of people being wrongfully executed and make the issue worse.

See, my response to your notion that I can't kill him because his life is sacred is that I'm going to put him on a plane and send him to your country. You can take care of him.

You can kill him, it's your country and your laws. I'm saying that I do not agree with those laws, and would not turn over a man to be executed. If you can somehow convince the US authorities to ship the people on death row to Europe because your sense of humanity is at the level of a bronze aged tribesmen sure I'll take 'em. Won't be holding my breath though.

And to conclude, you have not convinced me that you have a legal system that is capable of not imprisoning innocent people. If you can't keep yourself from imprisoning innocent people then you really shouldn't be throwing people in jail at all... no?

At no point did I claim any justice system is perfect anywhere, nor have I been saying at any point that justice systems don't convict innocent people. I'm saying, for the last time that because false convictions are unavoidable in every justice system, there should not be a possibility of accidentally killing someone innocent, and in practice the only way to ensure this is to abolish the death penalty like most countries have already done.

Your argument is that you do not want to spend resources on providing life imprisoned inmates with basic necessities so you're willing to pay the price of occasionally someone who's done nothing wrong being killed by the State. To me this is is unfathomably stupid and immoral logic.

You imprison me and you're killing me one day at a time.

Yes, but to repeat: being killed one day at a time is, at least to me and everyone else with half a brain, preferable to being killed instantly. I cannot give you back the years spent behind bars, but I can give you back the rest if your remaining life, something which is impossible after you've falsely executed someone.

You've keep pretending this makes no difference, or maybe you genuinely believe it doesn't, I don't know. In either case, you're wrong.

Comment Re:Idiotic (Score 1) 591

As to nothing beneficial being achieved by killing someone... what is beneficial about keeping them alive?

The possibility of them being released if they turn out to be innocent of the crime they were sentenced of. This is the huge issue which you have been consistently neglecting because you choose to place higher value on killing convicted criminals than the collateral damage in the form of innocent people losing their life at the hands of the justice system, for whatever illogical reason. Also really, if there is no need to kill them to prevent them from doing harm - as there isn't in a situation in which you already have them detained - then there really is no good reason to kill them.

As to your statement that you're comfortable with the courts making life and death choices... okay. Then we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. The courts are competent to execute. Next issue.

Okay here's where I got to correct myself a bit, as I explained it badly in my previous response. I come from a country which has neither the death penalty nor the concept of "life without the possibility of parole", so I am not, indeed, fine with courts making life and death choices. What I meant to convey is that I recognize that the courts have the authority to incarcerate people they deem guilty to safeguard the society from crime, but also to try and rehabilitate the individual if and when possible. If not possible, then I recognize that there are cases in which the person may have to remain incarcerated for the rest of his/her life, but that is not something that I think the court has the power to decide once and for all, ie. the person will always be given a chance to seek freedom.

If he leaves the city and doesn't come back then that is that. Far less harmful than incarceration.

We've come a long way since the time just dumping our criminals to our neighbors was considered acceptable.

If you're not comfortable making nasty choices then you have no business throwing people in jail for years on end either.

I never said nor implied I'm uncomfortable making nasty choices, but for the millionth time killing someone who's already detained is not the same choice as imprisoning them, and I believing the latter is sometimes necessary for the safety of people in general, while the former
is not. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

There is no way to do this without hurting people. There is no lesser evil

Yes there is Again, in a hypothetical situation where I'd be wrongly accused of a major crime, I'd very much prefer being incarcerated to being killed. A more clear cut example of a a "lesser evil" is hard to imagine.

There is no good served by keeping a mass murderer alive in a jail cell, spending perhaps millions of dollars on his medical bills or whatever else.

Again, as said before it's cheaper to keep him alive, and making capital punishment less expensive would make it even more likely to take innocent lives, so this is really a non-argument.

He isn't entitled to it.

Again, this is your opinion. I believe everyone's right to life is irrevocable. That is to say, the only context in which someone can justifiably be killed by the state is if they cannot be captured. Once they're captured, the state can limit their freedom to keep the rest of us safe, but they cannot, however, take their life.

He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. If that later turns out to be false we'll look into that.

You're sidestepping my entire argument. The point is precisely that once you execute someone, you cannot 'look into that' later and then release them, whereas with life imprisonment, if 'beyond shadow of a doubt' fails and the guy is indeed innocent, you can at least overturn the sentence the moment you discover he's innocent. There should not be a case in which a man not guilty of anything is killed by the state, yet that's always possible as long as the state is granted that power.

How about because keeping them alive serves no purpose?

Except that that's not true either as already pointed out. It serves a very, very important purpose by making sure the state will not kill innocent people by accident. To me, that is a feature that's crucial to any system of justice.

So again, you still have not presented me with any sensible reason to be for the use of capital punishment (not that I expect you to, I know all of the arguments for it and I do not agree with them, so it's not your fault as much as it's a principal different in our ideals of justice, and the weight we put on the value of innocent lives).

Comment Re:Idiotic (Score 2) 591

First, we have various law breakers that have to be killed to be brought down. You can't even arrest them. So you don't try. You kill them.

This is a different situation and I addressed it already. Yes, there are cases when lethal force is required to neutralize someone wo is a threat to others, nobody is denying that. My argument was and is that executions are needless killings, as nothing beneficial is achieved via them as compared to life imprisonment for reasons I have already listed.

The courts officiate over life and death all the time with or without a death penalty. IF you're saying they are unsuitable to make such judgements then I question why they're doing it all the time.

No, I'm not saying they're unsuitable to make such judgements but I'm saying that because the system makes mistakes, it's better if those mistakes (that are inevitable) lead to innocent people being incarcerated rather than killed, I think I was fairly clear on this. I'm also saying that since data shows that executing people costs more and doesn't help keep the crime rate down any more than life imprisonment does, it doesn't benefit the society at all.

You feel you have a right to lock me a box for 50 years but you don't have a right to shoot me? How do you figure that?

No, I don't have the right to do any of those things. But if you do something which proves you to be a danger to me and other people around you, then we have to make sure that danger is controlled. Incarceration is least harmful to the individual in question, and most people would rather be alive and incarcerated rather than dead. Hence most nations have opted to discard the capital punishment. If you argue that you'd rather be dead than incarcerated for life, that's alright, you're within your rights to self-terminate and I think people serving a life sentence should be given that option.

As to how I justify killing someone... again... justify imprisoning someone for 50 years

See above.

That is full disclosure. I'm letting you peak inside my brain. That is what I see

And why that is I do not knoq, because it should be obvious to anyone that killing someone and imprisoning them are not equivocal things, nor should any rational person treat them as such.

Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions

Except they won't. The countries and cultures employing capital punishment have long since been in the minority in the world. The vast majority of people globally oppose capital punishment.

I don't understand how killing a dude is going to make him less likely to unsavory things.

That is not what I said. I said that the capital punsihment doesn't work in reducing crime. I meant it overall. Areas with capital punishment have higher rates of violent crime than areas without it. It doesn't work a sa deterrent. Again, surely it prevents the individual from doing more crimes, but so does life imprisonment and again, with zero risk of killing innocent people by accident.

But if that's the case then why not kill them? They're clearly damaged beyond all recovery and can't be allowed to remain in society. Why am I feeding this person?

It's cheaper to you to feed and clothe said prisoenr for the rest of his life in prison than it is to go through the trouble of executing him, so the 'why am I feeding thisd person' argument makes no logical sense. You're achieving no enefit in killing them other than exacting vengeance; you're spending more of society's resources just for the sake of fulfilling a sense of revenge, which to me is outright stupid, no matter how 'beyond repair' this indicidual is,

As to this notion that you can undo an imprisonment, no you can't. If you stick me in a cell for 10 years it is cold comfort that you were going to keep me in there for 20. You can't give me my time back anymore than you can bring back the dead.

Naturally, but you can however release someone who's been wrongly convicted and let them live their lives in freedom for the remainder of their lives. This is why life imprisonent is superior, because whole the served time cannot be given back, at least some corrective action can be taken, something which is impossible when the person is dead.

As to executions being expensive, they're only expensive because of the trial

Yes, and the trials are expensive because they try to go through the trouble of minimizing the potential for innocents being executed, but we know that even with the insane costs, people still end up on death row while being innocent. So if you're to cut down on the costs of the trial process all you'd be doing is increasing the chances of innocent people dying because you want the justice system to save money, which is an asinine position to hold. And if anything, the cost should show that there is no amount of money that can guarantee 100 % error-proof sentencing, which is why sooner or later innocent people will die as a result. Again, as no societal benefit is achieved by doing this as opposed to just imprisoning the person, why keep this system in place at all?

As to the only purpose of a death penalty being revenge, no. There are lots of reasons.

Name a single one. You say this in an ideological issue for me, and it is, but it's also an issue on which I have the facts on my side. You, on the other hand, support such a policy for no good reason, and your answers to the points raised were incoherent at best.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry