highwaystar101 said:
vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:
vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Oh yeah, absolutely. There are people like serial killers who it's probably better to just never let out because teh risk would be too high, even after attempted reform.
|
So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.
|
Killing every person we deem unfit to re-enter society would be committing a worse crime than of them could have ever committed.
|
That is true, because many cases of "social unworthiness" can be just subjective. However we both know there are some plain objective cases. Furthermore, as I mentoined above each action has two parts, purpose and consequence, and if we just kill the people convicted of premeditated murder it would be nothing alike. One's purpose is malice, the other is keeping society safe and setting an example. If you will claim that such punishment is worse, then you'd have to find a good argument about how the latter intent is worse than the former.
|
*flip flop* I agree the latter intent is not worse, but it doesn't need to be, because killing people we deem dangerous to society is still pretty bad.
|
So then it is not worse, just pretty bad. I will try to refute that some more. Why is it still pretty bad if the people dangerous to society, the ones who have already harmed it and not the ones with potential to do so, are simply removed entirely, and are not left to cause other forms of burden on said society?
