(June 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm)Napoleon Wrote:(June 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm)martin02 Wrote: Let's extend this fun argument, then...
We could save a lot more food and oxygen by immediately killing all the murderers, rapists, petty criminals, political dissidents, unproductive citizens ...
Having fun yet?
The point is not that it's onerous to imprison the bad, or even what they deserve; it's what we deserve as a society. Clarke had an intriguing phrase, "Crime was a luxury Mercury could not afford." We can afford to not kill our enemies.
I'd personally only have the death sentence for those who have done the most 'terrible crimes' and that are going to be in prison for life anyway.
I also don't think society should be paying for people who clearly don't want to be a part of such a society.
Nap, I take it we're serious now?! I am against c.p. because it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed. Now, next problem, you want selectve c.p......how would you get agreement on what constitutes " terrible crimes "?
Next, I am not impressed at c.p. being a financial answer to such a big issue.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
