Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'm not a strong death penalty proponent

Comments Filter:
  • At the same time it has to be carried out by human beings. Very fallible human beings. There is ample statistical proof that the state is simply incapable of carrying such a policy out impartially, and while you can to some degree compensate someone after a wrongful imprisonment, there is nothing you can do to reverse a wrongful execution.
    • And yet we place such faith in the state for other things. Is that the state's inconsistency, or is the state itself merely a social construct, and we're never really more than individuals?
  • I have a hard time concieving of a crime that an easy death by lethal injection fits- or even the ease of the hangman's noose.

    This doesn't to me. This crime calls for 30 years in prison, chained to a wall, providing sexual release for large black men. In other words, a taste of what these three women suffered in service to their captors.

    Death is too good for them.

    In fact, I can't think of a single crime, other than poisoning, that I would think the death penalty actually fits.

    • I found some revenge porn [wikipedia.org] that you would love... Try not to look like a puppy dog chasing after a tennis ball.

      • My point is, if the purpose of the death penalty is revenge, we can come up with far more inventive methods that actually FIT THE CRIME.

        If the purpose of the death penalty is merely to keep the population safe from an insane criminal, welding works just as well and you can keep a man in a doorless, windowless solitary confinement for 100 years for around $30,000, compared with $2 million for all the appeals the death penalty requires.

        I rather doubt rehabilitation is possible in these cases anyway.

        • Hmm, 30,000 vs. 2 mil... Obviously the death penalty is much more profitable.

          • For the lawyers, sure. For the taxpayer, not so much.

            • Since when has any state existed for the benefit of its taxpayers?

              • Before the Englightenment, this was the standard, actually. Oh, sure, it looked like the Kingdom was for the King, but the King was really a servant in Catholic Countries, just as the Pope is the Servant of Servants today. Because, obviously, the last should be first, and the first, last.

                • ...the Pope is the Servant of Servants today.

                  I'll believe that when they close the bank [catholicnews.com], sell off its real estate [independent.co.uk], and disperse the funds to the 'servants'. The church serves the masters, its creators, those with authority. If the church ceases its corruption, it will be unrecognizable. The powerful have never acted as 'servant' to anybody but themselves. The whole idea is absurd. Mario Puzo has provided the most accurate history of the institution to date.

                  • The real estate is held in trust for the use by the laity- you can become an anchorite if you choose (though you'll probably have to convince the Bishop why you should suddenly have *exclusive* use of *common* property). The bank, well, I guess you haven't heard what Pope Francis said about the IOR [www.news.va].

                    I hope the Church does become unrecognizable to you- what is being done in the arena of corruption is very recognizable to me.

                    • I hope the Church does become unrecognizable to you...

                      That might happen... the moment it starts following its own rules, and its high priests actually become celibate. I don't expect to see the guest list of that bath house they're collecting the rent from.

                    • I believe it is coming. Because in the Information Age, the one tradition the Catholic Church most needs to add, isn't elimination of corruption. It is TRANSPARENCY. The divine light of the internet will eliminate the corruption, IF we are willing to be brave enough to be transparent.

                      That day will come when any chancery office can go to a subpage under Vatican.va and get an instant background check on any priest.

    • Concur, but I don't think you mean to condone the implied homosexuality there.
      • Concur, but I don't think you mean to condone the implied homosexuality there.

        Did you find the rape easier to condone than the homosexuality?

        • In the given hypothetical context, there is no distinction.
          In reality, I still don't see a distinction. We imprison people as a punishment, not a sexual outlet. Don't we?
          • For those in power (and even some in not) punishing people is a sexual outlet. Even if just a voyeuristic daydream, it's still a big turn-on for them. They have proven to be a very perverse bunch in every way.

            • Who are "those" and what does "punishing people is a sexual outlet" mean, specifically?
              You're laying down an accusation but where exactly does it meet reality?
              • Ah, so this is your new MO. Make everything you disagree with into an accusation. Nice diversion there.

                • And your diversion contained what facts? How is one to troubleshoot when there is no error feedback?
                  • I don't know. How do you describe water to a fish? If you gleefully swim in a cesspool, how do you describe the filth? The facts you ask for came from you yourself. In fact, you're soaking in them.

      • Or the interracial relationship

      • Ok, then let them be raped by large white trucker butch lesbians with strapons. The rape is the key part anyway- that's what they did to these three women, that's what they deserve to be done to them.

        • I really want to find some high level of abstraction where I can avoid wishing the Hammurabi code on the perpetrators.
          Perhaps next week.

About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. -- Herbert Hoover