Subject:
|
Re: Excellent news!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:52:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1133 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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 years. Doesn’t
anyone find that the least bit absurd?
|
Not sure where you are going with that since no one is going to live a
couple of hundred years.
|
Well, that’s my point. These types of absurd sentences are given out anyway.
|
I believe the point of three consecutive life setences is so that if someone
becomes eligible for parole, they would still have to serve the next consecutive
sentence (used in states that do not have “Life without any possible parole”
sentences).
| |
| |
| |
| |
Assure me that everyone ever executed was guilty and I’ll agree to the
death penalty.
|
Why?
|
So we don’t murder innocent people.
|
We do that anyway with our system that releases criminals on technicalities
and those criminals go on to kill again.
|
I don’t subscribe to the theory that two wrongs make a right - I just don’t see
how releasing a (suspected) murderer justifies executing an innocent person.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Let’s stick to an example of a serial killer
who confesses. Should we execute him?
|
|
No. There’s lots of people who confess to crimes that they haven’t
committed.
But even if it is the most airtight case possible (apprehended on the spot
with the murder weapon in hand with 20 witness with a clear view all looking
in the direction at the time with video cameras, confesses AND the victim
lives long enough to name his killer), making a rule based on that seems
foolish to me since you don’t get cases only like that.
|
I was trying to focus specifically on the morality of executions themselves.
|
Part of the morality of executions is the possiblity that you are executing the
wrong person. I don’t see the issues as being seperable.
| |
| |
I don’t enter into it at all (handing the petard with lit fuse - or Picard
with shaved head - back to you).
|
Well, silly me, I didn’t know that petards even had fuses! (though I am
well aware of hirsute-challenged starship commanders)
|
“Hoisted on your own petard” means that you were blown up by your own bomb. See
the beginning of the Richard Lester directed “The Four Musketeers” for an
example of a petard (the classic round bomb with a fuse tossed by hand).
I suppose “Hoisted on your own Picard” would mean that you got talked to death.
:-)
| |
| |
| |
(plowing through my ST:TNG collection; just finished season 1)
|
Doesn’t Star Trek: Enterprise wrap up Real Soon Now? I want at least one
more bare vulcan babe’s body part before the end....
|
So I’ve heard. It only lasted 4 seasons, which doesn’t sound like a long
time until you learn that, incredibly, ST:TOS only lasted 3!
We watched ST:E religiously the first season, but busy life has prevented me
from seeing any more episodes (any more TV, for that matter). Besides,
that is why God created DVD box sets! :-d
|
I think the point of DVD boxed sets for TV series is to seperate you from your
money. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Well, that's my point. These types of absurd sentences are given out anyway. (...) We do that anyway with our system that releases criminals on technicalities and those criminals go on to kill again. (...) I was trying to focus specifically on (...) (19 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
