(July 23, 2014 at 2:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.
What if someone murders for inheritance or insurance money?
Isn't that equating life with money?
What about a serial killer? Aren't they mighty hard to cure?
So, don't try to cure them. Lock them away for the rest of their lives.
Quote: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".
There are many other sociopathic behaviors that are nearly impossible to cure that do not result in the death of the victim, why isolate this one?
Why not life in prison without parole, or castration?
Quote: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.
Kleptomania and arsonists (the sociopathic ones) are hard to cure. Should we kill them?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
