The death penalty makes no sense.

[Amarok]

1.And the possibility of re offense is not enough to condemn someone to death or torture who might be saved .

2.Accept it fits definition of torture and one extreme case does not justify that torture 

3. And people who voted for Trump are not even a majority of the populous

5. Access to food and water does not make something not torture. That's  the same logic trumps defenders use to excuse his child prisons .Imprisonment for life is cruel and inhumane .

Your analogy does not work 

1. A dog cannot be held responsible for it's action. 

2.No i don't believe i dog should be killed for an attack it's unfair to hold a dog responsible.

3. I never compare a dog to human for an attack .The same way i would not treat a human who broke their leg the same as horse

---

Why life in prison without parole is the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment 

https://decarceratepa.info/voices/life-w...nhuman-and

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/...other-name

1.  You forgot to add "In my opinion".  I've already stated I don't agree with torture.  I've said it several times.  I've also said I don't accept incarceration as torture.  But, the number who can be "saved" is too low to justify the risk.  Remember, we're talking about rapists, serial killers, murderers, and other serious, usually repeat offenders here.

2.  No, I won't accept it just because you say it.  You sound like a Christian fundamentalist here...

3.  So you're advicating shutting down prisons and letting the offenders all walj free?  I didn't say food and water, did I?  I said tgey have better access to medical treatmenr and other things many people have to wait a long time for or can't get at all.

My hypothetical is perfectly fine, you just don't want to accept it.

Yes, a dog CAN be held accountable for its actions.  They frequently are.


The broken leg comparison is weak.

So we're back to letting the criminals run free after closing the prisons?

1.But it's not an opinion and i linked my case .Who decides what's to low ? I know who were talking about that does not alter my case .

2.I never said you had to accept it .But it none the less fits the definition via the link .

3. Regardless of the resources they have access to my point stands and i said nothing about doing away with prisons

4. And i'm we should no hold a dog responsible for it's actions because it has no ability to understand what it did was wrong  and my leg  analogy is perfect if your going to compare treating a human being the way we would an animal why can't i do the same ?

And again never said we should close all the prisons

---

Can pay death with more death ?

You didn’t answer my question.  Why should BTK get to wake up every day and eat a hot breakfast, take a nap, feel the sun on his face even for a minute, or sexually pleasure himself to the memories of the unspeakable horror he put his victims through?  Why should he get to do these things?  Why does he deserve his own life when he has spent much of it extinguishing the lives of others in the cruelest, most sadistic way fathomable, for his own pleasure. Why does he still have a right to life?

I did answer your question . Now i ask so what does denying all those things get us? Will killing him bring those experiences back to the dead ? What has been morally gained other then out own enjoyment of his suffering ?