ChatterBank23 mins ago
Finally Strung Them Up.
33 Answers
Took a while but got there in the end.
At least no chance of them being let out to do it again.
http://
At least no chance of them being let out to do it again.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
//Morality never goes out the window, unless the State or whoever has sunk to the level of the perpetrator//
Not quite sure of the point you're making here, OG.
All punishment (under the law) is by definition unpleasant to some degree or other. That doesn't make punishment immoral.
Take a case. Isn't there a crime of abduction and false imprisonment? A person found guilty of of that charge will be imprisoned. There's a possibly pleasing symmetry between crime and punishment, agreed? But the State's doing to the what the criminal did to his victim are not morally equivalent. Are they?
Similarly with capital punishment. I remember as a kid the legalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. The abolitionists coined the phrase "judicial murder". Excellent piece of rhetoric used by the cunning and the stupid then and now to create the same false equivalence between the punishment and the crime. There are good arguments against the death penalty, but describing it as "murder" is not one of them.
Not quite sure of the point you're making here, OG.
All punishment (under the law) is by definition unpleasant to some degree or other. That doesn't make punishment immoral.
Take a case. Isn't there a crime of abduction and false imprisonment? A person found guilty of of that charge will be imprisoned. There's a possibly pleasing symmetry between crime and punishment, agreed? But the State's doing to the what the criminal did to his victim are not morally equivalent. Are they?
Similarly with capital punishment. I remember as a kid the legalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. The abolitionists coined the phrase "judicial murder". Excellent piece of rhetoric used by the cunning and the stupid then and now to create the same false equivalence between the punishment and the crime. There are good arguments against the death penalty, but describing it as "murder" is not one of them.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I am against the death penalty - I find the idea of somebody spending the rest of their life in prison, preferably in crappy conditions, much more satisfying.
However, to describe the death sentence a "state sanctioned murder" is stupid and incorrect. If it is state sanctioned, and therefore legal, it cannot be murder. The word 'murder' is used simply as it's an emotive word - but using it is simply wrong. What is also wrong is the suggestion that it makes the state that sanctions ending the life equivalent to the person whose life is being ended.
However, to describe the death sentence a "state sanctioned murder" is stupid and incorrect. If it is state sanctioned, and therefore legal, it cannot be murder. The word 'murder' is used simply as it's an emotive word - but using it is simply wrong. What is also wrong is the suggestion that it makes the state that sanctions ending the life equivalent to the person whose life is being ended.
-- answer removed --
spath - // Whether i could hang them is another question as i couldn't, but i'm glad others can. //
I admire your honesty, but do you not feel that you are simply letting someone else complete a murder, because you are too squeamish to do it for yourself?
I think if you believe that someone should die as a punishment, then you should back that belief with a willingness to murder them yourself. To do otherwise is to abdicate your responsibilities to society.
I admire your honesty, but do you not feel that you are simply letting someone else complete a murder, because you are too squeamish to do it for yourself?
I think if you believe that someone should die as a punishment, then you should back that belief with a willingness to murder them yourself. To do otherwise is to abdicate your responsibilities to society.
-- answer removed --
spath - // I do not think people should die as punishment.. but if it's life untill death in bars, being fed 3 meals a day, looked after, free health care etc.. Why not just end it? Finish it? Save the money, save the time... BOOM! //
Because ending a human life simply to save money is not the action of a civilised society.
Because ending a human life simply to save money is not the action of a civilised society.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.