Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
At what point is it ok to just let him rot in jail for the rest of his life? If he's 50/50 to kill again? 80/20? 99%? 1%? 0.001%? Where do you draw the line? How can you possibly draw that line? How is it not morally reprehensible to draw that line? Is it worth the erosion of everyone's rights to save a guy from killing again?
No justice system is perfect, all we can hope for is the fairest, most reasonable approximation. In this case, the only clear, fair solution is to let the guy go, because in the end it is not even close to worth it to erode the rights of 30 000 000 in order to (maybe) save one or two.
Thinking of the problem from an ethics standpoint, this is the only solution. None of the schools of ethics would advocate the right wing emotion filled hatred going on in this thread.
|
Can you name a single school of ethical thought?
We may have already crossed the line of no return after sentencing. Clearly the man should have been locked up to prevent any potential future murders, which he has clearly shown himself capable of. Even still, the state does not match his depravity and take his life, only sustain him within a self-contained facility to protect society from him.