Subject:
|
Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:48:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
434 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
My whole point is so what? An innocent get killed. Your idea releases a
killer and he kills again. Both result in an innocent killed. What’s the
difference?
|
You want the state to do it, that’s the difference.
|
So you think that the state isn’t in any way culpable for the murder of an
innocent by a murderer who has been set free?
|
Didn’t say that. In fact I do think there is culpability, if it can be shown
that the state did not do its job in prosecuting the case. I can see the basis
for a civil suit by the second victims against the cops that failed to properly
miranda-ize the perp at the time of the arrest for the first crime, for example.
However that culpability resides in certain actors, not with the state itself.
The concept of immunity from civil action because you are an officer of the
state strikes me as wrong.
This issue is seperable from “should the state kill people as a means of
punishment”, in my view. I oppose the state using that level of force, even if
it’s a response to the initiation by the perpetrator, rather than an initiation.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
| (...) releases a (...) the (...) You're speaking as if the only alternative to the death penalty is letting people free. If you can show me with reasonable certainty that a given person is a danger to society, then I am willing to put them in prison (...) (20 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
