The death penalty as it is practiced is unfair, so the choice seems to me to suspend it or make it fair. I am far more prone to making it fair, although I freely admit that would be the more difficult of the two tasks.
There are many "treatments" which, in fact, maim or kill. Doctors know this. So do the drug companies which manufacture the toxins. Many oncologists say if they got cancer they would not take the standard chemo &/or radiation &/or surgery. Yet, these same oncologists get rich by doing exactly the things they say they would not have done to them. To me, that is mass murder in the first degree. I say execute a thousand or two of them, and I'll bet the docs & drug companies start changing their tune.
Shrub's friends who engage in war profiteering. Most of Congress & the Executive branch are all war criminals. If they all get executed, maybe we will be starting down the road to fairness.
It is my strong feeling & opinion that society cannot afford to shelter the mass murders amongst the wealthy while scapegoating the murderers from the lower classes -- whether one kills them all or just puts them all in pens for the rest of their natural days.
In my mind, it is far more humane to kill them than to treat them to life in prison. Being a slave is not a natural state -- whether one is treated poorly or well. It is my contention that it would be far better to release the souls from twisted lives than pen them up for decades. It is also much cheaper. So long as there is a choice between helping out someone who is growing *or* keeping a killer alive while letting the struggling person starve, I choose to help the struggling person. Even if resources are infinite, there is still the question of whether the souls of people imprisoned for decades are better off than those killed swiftly.
no subject
There are many "treatments" which, in fact, maim or kill. Doctors know this. So do the drug companies which manufacture the toxins. Many oncologists say if they got cancer they would not take the standard chemo &/or radiation &/or surgery. Yet, these same oncologists get rich by doing exactly the things they say they would not have done to them. To me, that is mass murder in the first degree. I say execute a thousand or two of them, and I'll bet the docs & drug companies start changing their tune.
Shrub's friends who engage in war profiteering. Most of Congress & the Executive branch are all war criminals. If they all get executed, maybe we will be starting down the road to fairness.
It is my strong feeling & opinion that society cannot afford to shelter the mass murders amongst the wealthy while scapegoating the murderers from the lower classes -- whether one kills them all or just puts them all in pens for the rest of their natural days.
In my mind, it is far more humane to kill them than to treat them to life in prison. Being a slave is not a natural state -- whether one is treated poorly or well. It is my contention that it would be far better to release the souls from twisted lives than pen them up for decades. It is also much cheaper. So long as there is a choice between helping out someone who is growing *or* keeping a killer alive while letting the struggling person starve, I choose to help the struggling person. Even if resources are infinite, there is still the question of whether the souls of people imprisoned for decades are better off than those killed swiftly.