Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands
I never put words in your mouth. I simply stated the major difference between the two circumstances, and why that difference really makes the comparison invalid. One is purposely hurting people, the other is not. Whether we understand their psyche or not doesn't change that fact.
|
You say it makes the "comparison invalid", but I didn't make a comparison at all. You are saying I DID make a comparison, which I did not, so you are putting words in my mouth, or missing my point entirely.
Who is the judge of what things are worthy of instant death as a punishment in society? Who decides? What happens when things like knowledge and values change? Oh sorry, too bad about all those people that were killed now that we found out their behaviour was a result of Cause A.
Or does none of that matter?
Quote:
|
Perhaps, but there is also value in cutting your losses, and minimizing the potential for reoccurence. It's time the Risk vs. Reward ratio for the offenders is tweaked. I am more interested in the deterent than the revenge.
|
Not so much risk vs. reward as cost vs. benefit. Why don't we kill all violent offenders? Or all repeat criminals? Huge deterrent, huge benefit. So why don't we? What's the cost that isn't worth paying?
As for "deterrent"... what deterrent? Being cast out from society, hated by everyone, no chance of ever getting better, no one willing to help, every chance of being caught, put into prison to likely die at the hands of inmates, hating yourself, living with the damage done to others.. how much more deterrent can you can you create? Why doesn't all of that deter them already? Maybe the problem is seated much deeper?
Killing them all is a middle ages kind of response.