(June 18, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Ashground Wrote: Against. I think the best protection for society from the worst of the worst is separation (Life without parole). If someone is safely contained then surely there is no reason to kill them? I don't think killing dangerous people is always wrong but only when they pose an immediate danger.
My personal belief is that killing someone - anyone - in cold blood is always immoral.
Also, I don't comprehend why the US is so pro-capital punishment (by western standards). I would have thought that people who think they need a personal armory to defend themselves from their own government would be against that government having the power to separate them from their arms, confine them and then strap them to a chair and kill them. I will never understand Americans.
Me neither .. and I am one. (Anti-gun-nutter though.)
There is no reason to kill the dangerous person so long as there is nothing more deserving the money required could go to. If everyone got enough to eat, a good education, health care and shelter then I'd be right there with you. But here in the U.S., that isn't the way it goes. A huge fraction of children are in poverty and a good chunk of the adult population is incarcerated already. (We are so fucked.)