Well this is going to sound dumb to many people but I find the notion an "Eye for an eye" utterly ridiculous.

Same with the death penalty. It doesn't make sense to me to say "You killed so you will be killed" because if you were going by that logic the killers killer would then have to be killed for killing the killer and thus a regress until there were no more willing participants to partake in the killing. Call this a naive viewpoint but if killing is wrong, what makes you any better for killing someone else?

I support locking them up for life, making them work for their keep, and if they refuse to do so don't feed them or do anything that helps them. It'd only be their fault if they starved, and if they want to commit suicide, well okay.

But then again, wouldn't allowing them to die let them get away from their punishment? If you're dead there's no bullshit. You don't fucking care. You're a body in the dirt. You can't be disciplined if you're not alive.

If the killer takes many lives then taking the killer's life is not equally bad.

I agree that "eye for an eye" is utterly ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right (although choosing the lesser "wrong" may be the best option you can take).

<Ambassador recalled> The Glorious Silicoid Fleet will purge the galaxy of the the Sakkra filth.

---

(February 21, 2011 at 1:12 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: If the killer takes many lives then taking the killer's life is not equally bad.

I agree that "eye for an eye" is utterly ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right (although choosing the lesser "wrong" may be the best option you can take).

Be mindful of resources. Are you willing to allow a problem to continue because it caused more damage than it was worth?

The death penalty is not a question of right and wrong, but of wether the people that committed crimes deemed worthy of a death penalty are worth keeping alive or not. I have a clever adaptation of the death penalty: make up the worth the person lost on dangerous portions of a battlefield/in a secret government lab running tests... or be killed to stop the problem from continuing a worthless investment in the person's life.

(February 22, 2011 at 3:25 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: I have a clever adaptation of the death penalty: make up the worth the person lost on dangerous portions of a battlefield/in a secret government lab running tests... or be killed to stop the problem from continuing a worthless investment in the person's life.

What kind of "worth" are you talking about?

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:What kind of "worth" are you talking about?

Oh i don't know... worth being subjective and all. Putting people in time out for extended periods of time is a giant waste, and it is unlikely most people are worth anything substantial enough to warrant putting in time out. Put a price on someone: that is how much you deem them worth. They cause more damage than they are worth, and are unable or highly unlikely to return a satisfactory amount of the investment? Cut the loss(es).

Is there another kind of 'worth' to confuse 'a determined value' with? 0.o

Are you talking about financial worth then?

(February 21, 2011 at 1:12 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights make an airplane.

Doubtie Wrote:Are you talking about financial worth then?

Goodness... value is not inherently monetary. However, everything one deems to have a value enough to be salable can be quantified in money (or a trade). Thusly is everything worth anything of financial worth.

Nothing is exempt this.

(February 20, 2011 at 11:32 pm)Ubermensch Wrote: My feelings are that murderers, among other kinds of criminal, sacrifice a number of their human rights for a certain stretch of time, when they commit their crimes. And I'm not necessarily for lobotomy, I just consider it acceptable to perform on a murderous sociopath who refuses to cooperate and nothing else will work. Either that or have him publically shot in the middle of the gulag where every other prisoner can see what happens when you misbehave badly enough.

So you would sink to their level of inhumanity, just to spite them?

Impressive.

(February 21, 2011 at 11:07 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Way too black or white, bad poll.

What do you mean? Either you support the death penalty or you do not. If there is one single thing that you support the death penalty for, then you support the death penalty. Otherwise you are oppsed to the death penalty.

---

(February 21, 2011 at 12:07 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Hence why I voted 'I support it' despite the fact I can barely conceive of a time when I would.

The same here. I voted "I support it" for selfish reasons. I dispise the idea of it, but I dont want to be in a prison with a murderer who can kill all he wants and just gets more life sentences added to him.