[driveway]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Thanks for the response driveway.


Why can't we distinguish between murdering an innocent member of society, and executing a murderous wretch who has proven he/she does not value the lives of others?

The problem with this is that, if you allow for it to be 'right' to take a life under certain circumstances, then there will always be argument over what the appropriate circumstances are. If you allow for any gray area about when it is and is not okay for society to take a person's life then you allow room for people to make arguments increasing the scope of that area. I feel that the bar has to be set at zero.

What you call lazy, I would call efficient. In our twisted system right now, monsters such as Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen are still able to reach out and inflict further pain on the families of the victims. IMO, they are weeds that need to be pulled before their poision spreads. That in itself helps to advance the civilization.

First of all, efficiency is not a virtue. Secondly, I have sympathy for the families of victims, but their suffering is insufficient to warrant the taking of a life. ALL suffering is insufficient in my view. (Yes, even in the hyperbolic cases of genocidal maniacs and war criminals)

How many fathers would resort to vigilante justice knowing the perpetrator faces the death penalty?

This is not a reason to instate the death penalty. We haven't had the death penalty in Canada in decades and, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of this kind of vigilantism.

I was serious about the penal colony. I would see this as a great compromise in the capital punishment debate. Let murderers and rapists live amongst and rehabilitate themselves.

I have no problems with that. I think it would be a fine solution. Also, my opposition to capital punishment in no way means I am opposed to corporal punishment.