Subject:
|
Re: Excellent news!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:19:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
| |
Indeed, is it not even offensive that heinous murderers are allowed to
retain that which is most precious when they didn’t afford the same to
their victims? Keeping them alive doesn’t uphold the value of life;
ending theirs does-- the precious lives of their victims.
|
Assure me that everyone ever executed was guilty and I’ll agree to the death
penalty.
|
Why? How? Specious besides. Let’s stick to an example of a serial killer
who confesses. Should we execute him?
|
If you can prove that all confessions are 100% truthful. What if he’s lying to
protect his sister? Sure he probably deserves a penalty for lying about it, but
the needle?
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) That well may be, but my point was and is to try and address the moral issue of execution directly. Your post reminds me of that classic scene in "Mr. Mom" where Jack is using the "Rocky" analogy. "Which Rocky?" :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Thanks. Resume kicking position:-) (...) Well, humans only live so long. I see little difference in a sentence of 40 years and one of 3 consecutive life sentences. I love it when someone becomes eligible for parole after a couple of hundred (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
55 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
|
|
|
|
