The death penalty makes no sense.

[LadyForCamus]

If I may?  

You're asking for a reason not to kill someone.  Tiz is asking for a reason to kill someone.  If the only reason we can think of to kill a person is that we have no reason not to (let's ignore that we do)......we're not really standing on solid ground.

I can frame it a different way.  We should kill him because he deserves it.  I mean, don’t you believe in secular, objective morals?

If we contend that by violating someones right to this or that they themselves forfeit that same right and we will act in kind..we end up with a spiral of vengeance, not a system of justice.  The problems with that sort of thing are profligate..not just in our system but throughout all of human history.

That’s a bit of a slippery slope, don’t you think?

---

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

---

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 ?

He will be sufficiently punished for his crimes; hopefully experiencing the same terror and agony he forced upon his victims.

---

And 78 or so kids don't HAVE a life because of him.

And killing and torturing him will not bring back 78 kids.

No, but he can feel the pain and fear he brought onto his victims, which is what he deserves.