Capital punishment: why is it not morally and politically acceptable?

The scum described in this article will cost us over $10 million in prison expenses for the duration of their incarceration.

They have been allowed to live because we have the peculiarly Western "sanctity of human life" approach to vermin such as these. In China they would be hanged or shot or whatever it is they do to rid society of their sub-humans.

One of the ironies of this absurd situation is that, under others of our laws, we could probably not deport them to their countries of origin because there they would be sensibly executed.

 

It's perfectly acceptable and used freely here in Texas. There's nothing wrong with it. Weak and sensitive people today in the western world have begun operating on this illogical philosophy that putting a murderer to death makes you no better than them. But if we follow this line of thinking, then it becomes equally hypocritical to imprison a kidnapper or a hostage taker. Or to fine a thief. So all justice becomes unjust. Which is ridiculous.

 

The kind of capital punishment he is talking about isn't legal in Texas. Read the article, it isn't a murder rap, he wants to off people for drug offenses. I think from Awryly's perspective, you would be one of those "weak and sensitive people" unless you agreed that drug dealers should be put to death.

 

I'll be honest. He's been on my ignore list for over a year now, so I didn't actually see what he posted. I just read the title and gave my two cents on what I assumed he was probably talking about. That's all I ever do when I post in an Awryly thread.

 

They don't make enough of that chemical to execute drug dealers in this country. I don't really agree with that anyway. Hell we have thousands that commit murder that aren't executed. But I can understand some people's attitude against execution, although I'm not one of them.

 

There seems to be a sensibility that drug dealers of the kind the article describes are less deserving of the death penalty than murderers.

Consider this: murderers usually kill only once; drug dealers destroy life after life after life after life. And those whose lives they destroy have to go on living with what they become.

 

That's why I think bartenders should be lined up and shot. The same for croupiers.

 

Ah, the demand side argument.

Let's set up factories where it is legal to process cocaine and heroin (under government supervision of course - we don't want any impurities), so that NZders don't need methamphetamine to fuel their happy habits.

We are so short-sighted.

 

You're arguing that they are serial killers, yes?

Last time I saw, the victims of a serial killer didn't pick their poison. It picked them.

The victims of drug abuse picked themselves to take that first hit and become drug abusers. They may be the scum of the earth, but they don't "deserve" the death penalty.

 

But they couldn't "take their first hit", as you put it, if it was not in the supply chain, could they?

 

It's not acceptable because the government fails to do anything right. Does anyone have the statistics on the percentages of these prisoners have been later found innocent?

The elitist pricks at the top want to eliminate around 80% of the world's population. They are doing it by stealth whether you realize it or not. Most of the eugenics freaks call themselves progressive liberals and pretend to want to save the earth these days. It's a good mask. They used to just call themselves Nazis but decided to do away with the uniforms.

 

Because you can never 100% prove that someone is guilty. By executing them you're denying them the chance of being able to demonstrate their possible innocence at a later time.

There have been cases of people being executed and then evidence has been found which casts doubt on their guilt.

 

That's the only good reason I would consider to not administer a death penalty.

But these guys confessed.

 

Newsflash. The Nazis were a conservative movement with a Roman Catholic creationist in charge.

 

Prove, 100%, that the confession wasn't beaten out of them.

 

We are not Americans.

And, besides, if you read the article, there was overwhelming physical evidence.

 

Drug dealers couldn't sell them if the stupid public didn't buy them. Lets put a lot of the blame on these weak minded souls that think they can't get through the day without a joint.

 

So you are saying that because you have stupid gun laws that allow people to want to buy guns and bullets it's their own fault if they occasionally get shot?

 

Billy Gates owns majority of the shares of Monsanto, Indian farmers are offing themselves and disease is climbing. He said to kill grandma and hire 10 teachers, Billy Gates the hero, pays the media to paint glorious pictures of him. Billy Gates is vaccinating the 3rd world and they are paralyzed.

Al Gore's carbon taxes would kill millions of people and they will all pay it to him. He will save the earth with taxes paid to him and his partners, he might even go green with one of his mansions.

Soros, the Nazi, funds all the leftist groups, and he is also a hero. Crashed economies/currency of entire nations and made out like a bandit. Funds Obama. A real American hero.

The international communist UN pays 3rd world leaders to keep their people poor and stop development. They only starved 1 million Iraqi children during the embargo according to the UN.

 

History revisionism at it's best.

 

You are wrong. Drug dealers do not destroy any lives at all. The addicts destroy their OWN lives. The dealers provide a service for which their is demand, its not their problem if someone gets addicted because its not their responsibility.

 

That's the demand-side argument I addressed earlier - see post #8.

Why do you think that people choose to destroy their lives?

Tobacco is no different from hard drugs. It kills or maims most of the people who use it. And they use it because it is made available by morally bankrupt tobacco companies who know it is highly addictive. It performs no useful social function as, for example, alcohol does.

The only reason tobacco company executives are not in jail or worse is because tabacco has been a legal substance since the 17th century and no government has had the guts to outlaw it.

 

Out of curiosity, what "useful social functions" does alcohol perform for you that makes it different than tobacco and other drugs?

 

In makes intolerable people tolerable. That has to be a societal good.

I believe the politically-correct term for that is "oiling social interaction".

 

Well... About capital punishment, there is an amendment. Amendment 8...

And murder is pretty much as cruel as you can get. Government should protect life, not help to destroy it.