And they're likewise the ones who escape, or are discharged. What's your point?

Sidhe

How about society getting reparation for its loss of a, ostensibly, productive member?

When someone's life is taken, society doesn't get it any more than the victim.

Why do you say that?

What if the victim was a doctor, a priest, an engineer, a teacher, a philosopher, or a taxpayer?

You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years?

Yes

No, I'm saying that if a murderer's life is taken, nobody receives it. Neither the victim, nor society gains a life by taking another.

Ah, gotcha.

So you're saying that instead of making a murderer pay the price for his actions we get to pay the price for his further existance.

I don't consider economics to be relevant when discussing whether to kill someone.

try not to hit the shoes

Quote:

2. 'We are working in ideals not reality.' So what's the point of this debate? I'm sure it's pretty real for the victims.

It's essential. Before we look at how we use the death penalty in real life, we have to answer the question of whether it is morally allowable. If it is, then the debate should focus on accuracy and equity. If it is not, then no argument based on deterrence, revenge, ‘closure’ or future crimes has any weight.

I'd rather look at first issues first, then deal with how they are instantiated in real life.

-sm

For most people economics is a proxy for time and effort. When you have to work for a living, the cost of supporting a convicted parasite on society is a legitimate issue.

quote:Originally posted by glatt


"You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years? "


She didn't KILL anyone. That makes all the difference in the world. Wanting to kill YOURSELF, as opposed to wanting to kill someone else (or a lot of someone elses) is not a crime against society, IMO. She wasn't preying on anyone else. You're trying to compare two entirely different types of people.

If it was such a big problem for everyone, hell, they should've let her jump. Then traffic could've gone on it's way, and no time would've been wasted.


Sidhe

I think that's what I have difficulty with. He is a person. he has done awful things and I can understand a desire to punish someone who has done awful things.....but they never do stop being people.