sundin13 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
First of all, it's not "revenge." THE DEATH PENALTY IS HANDED OUT BY A NEUTRAL JURY.
Second of all, even if it was revenge, so what? Revenge is a dish best served cold, and Boston gets VERY, VERY cold!
Third of all, the death penalty gives VALUE to human life. Basically if you don't give the murderer (especially a mass murderer) the death penalty you are saying that person's life is MORE worthy of life than the victims. Basically you are saying the victims lives were worthless.
Fourth of all, people CHOOSE to commit murder. It's a CHOICE, so they know the consequences. If I put my hand on a hot stove, I will get burnt. Simple as that.
Fifth of all, there are children STARVING. Veterans HOMELESS. Our tax money should go to them before a guy who thought it was funny to kill a dozen people including a baby and 6 year old girl.
There are no legitimate arguments against the death penalty.
|
Well the first two are nothing statements, the third doesn't make any sense (you are going to have to explain yourself a lot better to make that assertion), the fourth is irrelevant and the fifth is ignorant to the cost of death penalty cases.
Arguments against the death penalty (in general) include: High cost, uncertainty of guilty determinations, questionable message it sends, questionable morality, questionable constitutionality, lack of deterrent effect, inconsistencies based on attorney quality, death is an easy way out, death penalty cases draw out family's involvement etc
What we are lacking are reasons to choose the death penalty over life without parole...
The_Yoda said:
Not sure how you are getting to the change in comparison or that your revision is even a comparison
|
What do you mean? Its obvious that "just let a country kill us" isn't equivalent to "life in jail"...as I said, a better comparison would be to "letting the criminal free". I think I explained myself quite clearly, so you will have to clarify what exactly you don't understand.
|
