[Lady Sidhe]

"Aside from the economical factor (which I believe is callous and should not take precedence in this argument), the above statements are all condemnations of the act of killing - and are not automatically a valid advocation for our right to terminate. We are all in agreement here that killing, particularly the brutal cases you refer to, is abhorrent and intolerable. Where we differ in opinion is that it is right to take their life 'in return'. "




The only real answer I can give to that is the fact that the penalties for crimes are well-known. We have established punishments, agreed upon them, and codified them as law. The individual, as part of the society, accepts those laws, and when s/he violates one or more of those laws, s/he knows the penalty.

If you don't believe in state-sanctioned execution, don't kill and therefore place yourself in the position of being executed if caught. Murderers on death row seem to be the most vocal anti-dp voices in the world. Murder is apparantly ok, as long as it's not THEM facing death.

The simple fact is, the state has said, "if you murder, the penalty for the life you took is your own life." That's the law. It hasn't changed yet, so the fact that it is law, and that it is WELL-KNOWN law, is its justification. This is how we have chosen to deal with the most dangerous predators. If you don't want to die, don't commit cold-blooded murder. It's very simple, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the logical connection.

The economical factor IS important, however. While it may seem callous, it really isn't. It's an example of how crime and recidivism drains society's resources, resources that could be used to the betterment of society rather than the upkeep of society's predators. WHY should we first have to worry about where they will strike next until they're caught, and then be forced to take care of them for the rest of their lives AFTER they're caught? We don't owe them that. We don't owe them ANYTHING. They owe society. However, they prey on society when they're on the outside, and then leech off society when they're in prison. That seems to me to be placing the well-being of the predator over the short-and long-term well-being of the society that they've offended.

For instance, we have to pay the cops who patrol. Then we have to pay them overtime when they're trying to find a killer. Their family life suffers because of the time they put in (I know some cops, and I've heard it from them); think of all the money we spend in court costs, appeals costs, costs for recidivists, food, shelter, clothing, weight rooms, medical, dental, vision, free schooling, cable, law libraries, attorney's fees, etc. All this, for the rest of their lives. That's a huge price tag.

If we're not allowed to make them useful, such as in the laboratory, and prisons, rather than being self-sufficient, depend on society for their upkeep, society is not benefitting, other than the fact that the predator is in jail, using up yet more of our resources.

Some people do not deserve life. When one person's life causes misery and destruction of the lives of others wherever s/he goes, when this person cannot be rehabilitated, cannot be studied, cannot be made useful, then there is no point in this person's existence.


I think that the benefit to society should outweigh the concern for the murderers. Kinda along the lines of, "if you don't contribute, you don't eat." The Arizona governor who put inmates in tents in the desert had the right idea. They bitched and moaned about how HARRRRD it was, but he said that if it was good enough for our boys in Iraq, it was damn sure good enough for them.

That's just an example of how we cater to criminals. They don't have a RIGHT to accomodations any better than that which can be afforded by the poorest of us. If that's a tent, so be it. If it's a box, so be it. They shouldn't be entitled to health care, when most poor folks, and not-so-poor-folks, on the outside can't afford it. They shouldn't be entitled to entertainment that can't be afforded by people on the outside.

If we'd strip them down to the bare minimum needed for survival, like a lot of honest folks live on, we'd save a lot of money. Anything after food, water, clothing, and minimal shelter is lagniappe, and they aren't entitled to any of it.


Sidhe