07-03-2018, 02:48 PM
(07-03-2018, 02:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So if removing them from society accomplishes that, then the death penalty accomplishes that. So we are back to the standard reasons for opposing it. What I'm trying to say is I think there's a lot of looking into something that isn't there.
If two things can have the same effect, but one also violates other values, then the other is preferable. I disagree that I'm looking into something that isn't there. To be fair, life imprisonment wasn't something our founders would have been all in for, either, but that wasn't a typical thing to occur at the time. I forget who it was that said it, but it was either a founder or one of the philosophers they based their thoughts on who said that any punishment more than is necessary is an act of tyranny. If the goal is permanent removal from society, then it can be achieved with life imprisonment and putting them to death is unnecessary, which makes it an act of tyranny.
Edit: I know that this retort was very much a stream of consciousness, so hopefully you can follow it.
(07-03-2018, 02:39 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Didn't Washington have some of his officers executed for walking away from their posts because congress wasn't paying them or something like that?
He did, and then also requested Congress to severely limit the use of capital punishment. The military isn't a democracy, especially at war.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
