|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Death Penalty | by BuggedEyes | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
The death penalty is indefensible. | by mmell | 2004-12-14 08:00:26 |
|
*sigh* How about practicality? | by Voltigeur | 2004-12-14 08:10:37 |
|
Another reason as well: | by phezult | 2004-12-14 08:20:02 |
| I tend to... |
by jdelphiki |
2004-12-14 08:57:46 |
...support the death penalty in theory, but not in the way we've chosen to implement it. I believe the standard for implementing the death penalty should be remarkably high, with as many safeguards as possible against making mistakes. The prevalance of DNA testing has already gone a long way toward reducing the potential for those kinds of errors, but it's not enough on its own. Basically, we need to be sure before we put someone to death.
That said, I'm not one of those who believes that the government does not have the right to use deadly force in certain situations. A government has the responsibility to respond in kind to a warlike attack on its citizens or territory. Law enforcement officers are often required to use deadly force against someone who threatens the well-being and safety of themselves or the public in general. To say that a government cannot decide to kill someone who represents a threat to public safety is to say that the government has no right to protect its citizens or interests.
The thing that I always think of in cases like Scott Peterson's is this: if the police had happened on the scene right at the moment when Peterson was killing the very pregnant Laci, would they have been justified in using deadly force in stopping Scott from killing his wife? At the very least, the government should be supported in the use of deadly force in such a scenario.
Does the death penalty fit as a logical, but delayed, equivalence of that scenario: To protect the public from someone who has shown the will and ability to kill? And perhaps to also discourage those who might otherwise be inclined to do the same?
That's open for debate and I can see very valid points on both sides of the issue, even though I'm obviously more on the "pro" side.
And I know my own opinions won't convince anyone either way. It's just not a very simple issue to resolve.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Playing a bit of devil's advicate here | by ManiacJoe | 2004-12-14 10:49:10 |
|
Not necessarily, because | by jdelphiki | 2004-12-14 11:12:13 |
|
Q: What's the difference... | by Illiad | 2004-12-14 12:15:15 |
|
By my vague understanding of the law... | by jdelphiki | 2004-12-14 12:45:29 |
|
why distinguish? | by joecrouse | 2004-12-14 19:46:58 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
