Court rejects lethal injection challenge

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I'm very pro death penalty. An eye for an eye I say

Of course I could quote the cliche Ghandi quote in response, but appeal's to authority and their opinions isn't a factual argument. So why do I bring it up? To ruin it for whomever will inevitably use it.

I believe that the family of the victim(s) should decide the fate of the convicted.

Seems like a much better idea to me than letting the state decide. Then if the family's anti-death-penalty or whatever, justice can be enacted as they see fit.

I'm so very sick and tired of seeing people who are sentenced to death waiting around for 30 freakin' years.

Isn't the 30 years an added-on punishment? I know it takes a few years for appeals and whatnot, but I imagine at this point 30 years would just be for the benefit of added punishment. But if only for that reason, then I think nothing more than death is necessary (especially on the taxpayer).

But sorry Reb, overall I gotta disagree. I wish I could remember the statistics that I read a while back, but I know that quite a few people are expunged of their charge while waiting on death row, and freed. If it were so instant, a lot (more) innocent people would end up dead.

I also believe that more crimes should be allowed on the list of crimes the death penalty is applied to. Like rape for example.

I think repeated rape would be a more ethical basis. Rape, while horrible in and of itself, does have it's varrying degrees. There's "drunk and won't take no for an answer", and there's Ted Bundie-style assaults with metal bars and such. Lets not go into graphic detail...






Personally, I think the justice system should be based on Utilitarian harm-reduction through and through. None of this seeing the criminals as victims who need a hug, and none of this blood-thirsty mentallity that we have to exact revenge via suffering just for the sake of inflicting suffering itself. The answer to the suffering caused by cancer isn't to punish the cancer and make it suffer, it's to cut it out as efficiently as possible.

[jamesia]

Personally, I think the justice system should be based on Utilitarian harm-reduction through and through. None of this seeing the criminals as victims who need a hug, and none of this blood-thirsty mentallity that we have to exact revenge via suffering just for the sake of inflicting suffering itself. The answer to the suffering caused by cancer isn't to punish the cancer and make it suffer, it's to cut it out as efficiently as possible.

That's the way I look at it! I think a good start would be to eliminate victimless crimes from being punished and starting to punish corporate workers for crimes with victims. If a corporation comes out with a product that causes death or some other great bodily harm, they should be punished the same way a person would. Admittedly it would take some working out... but there's always a person that approves of a product being made, and they should be held responsible. I just say that because my dad was one of the people that had a Ford Explorer who's tire blew up while driving due to bad manufacture. If I personally did something to make someone's tires explode... I'd be in jail.

On the other hand, someone smoking pot shouldn't be in jail, since there's no actual victim. In the same line of thinking, the government should jail people that eat too much sugar, since they'd be harming their bodies and increasing their chances of getting diabetes.

That way we have a clear distinction showing what exactly is a crime, and you go to jail in order to make the community safer. All utilitarian-like... like you said.