(July 23, 2014 at 2:25 pm)Blackout Wrote:(July 23, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm against the death penalty myself with two exceptions: murder for hire, and child molestation.
Why is murder for hire less serious than a hideous voluntary qualified murder?
Because it equates life with money. That equation marks the person making it as a sociopath, and that's a mighty hard condition to cure.
(July 23, 2014 at 2:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: And why execute someone who molested a child but didn't kill? Isn't that against the an eye for an eye?
Why shoulod I care about that? That isn't what is driving my opinion, thanks. I'm for executing fairly-convicted child molesters because their proclivity is virtually impossible to "cure".
(July 23, 2014 at 2:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: I'm against the death penalty, but I must say if you support it for two cases then you're not against it...
That would probably explain my use of the qualifier "with two exceptions". I am against its application in any other case.
(July 23, 2014 at 2:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: If I supported the death penalty, from an hypothetical standpoint, I would only support it for crimes of murder by a matter of proportionality, the typical Kant line saying only death can pay back society for murder
I don't see that as useful, myself, because no amount of retribution repairs the damage. The two instances in which I support it aren't driven by the deisre to pay back the crime, but rather, as a prophylactic, to prevent recidivism in two instances given the difficulty of changing those behaviors.
