Estimated 50 Immigrants Have Drowned
News1 min ago
Nutter who killed the baby.
As a rule I disagree with the death penalty, but in this particular instance, try as I might, I just can't see a reason for keeping him alive - he is evil personified and has no redeeming features whatsoever.
What is the point in wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds keeping him alive?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A life for a life...
I'm going to relate an example from my own personal experience.
My aunt and her husband were tortured for several days by two guys who broke into their appartment. And then they were killed.
Do I want the inhumane animals (I have no reservations using the word because, like it or not, we all are) to be hanged, gassed, burned in a pit or otherwise disposed of?
Here's the crunch.
I. Don't. Care.
My aunt is dead and no amount of pain a state executioner or a blood-thirsty mob or a fiesty cell-mate will inflict on these guys will bring her back or make me feel better.
I do definitely want these people behind bars for life, isolated, so that they can never do what they did to anyone else.
Murder is murder. The person who has commited murder is no more or less evil if they killed a man, woman or a baby. Once you've crossed that line there's no going back, no redeeming yourself. But as tempting as it is to suggest that the person who crosses that line becomes somehow inhuman, they do not. They are indeed, still, human. Terrifying, disgusting, appaling - yes, but not inhuman.
After all, only human beings have the capacity to kill AND torture their young for reasons of emotional nature. Am I mistaken or is there no precedent in the animal kingdom for this type of behavior? Human beings are a unique and in some ways (such as this one) highly flawed species. So do we really have the right to pass life and death judgements?
I'm going to relate an example from my own personal experience.
My aunt and her husband were tortured for several days by two guys who broke into their appartment. And then they were killed.
Do I want the inhumane animals (I have no reservations using the word because, like it or not, we all are) to be hanged, gassed, burned in a pit or otherwise disposed of?
Here's the crunch.
I. Don't. Care.
My aunt is dead and no amount of pain a state executioner or a blood-thirsty mob or a fiesty cell-mate will inflict on these guys will bring her back or make me feel better.
I do definitely want these people behind bars for life, isolated, so that they can never do what they did to anyone else.
Murder is murder. The person who has commited murder is no more or less evil if they killed a man, woman or a baby. Once you've crossed that line there's no going back, no redeeming yourself. But as tempting as it is to suggest that the person who crosses that line becomes somehow inhuman, they do not. They are indeed, still, human. Terrifying, disgusting, appaling - yes, but not inhuman.
After all, only human beings have the capacity to kill AND torture their young for reasons of emotional nature. Am I mistaken or is there no precedent in the animal kingdom for this type of behavior? Human beings are a unique and in some ways (such as this one) highly flawed species. So do we really have the right to pass life and death judgements?
Intersting bit of info:
Simply by virtue of living in any developed country we are necessarily depriving some child somewhere in the third world of their daily subsistance, and thus damning them to a slow and painful death, not unlike torture.
If a parent of that child thought that we deserve to die for not doing something about it, thus contributing to the suffering and death of their child, would you still advocate the death penalty?
Outlandish far-left propaganda? No doubt someone out there zealously believes it. But that brings us full circle to the point that the decision to KILL for a cause or a reason no matter how justified or objective it might seem is a subjective decision by a human being. There are people and groups of people out there who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of us deserve swift death for one reason or another. So who gets to decide who deserves to die?
Wouldn't it be better, wouldn't it be a safer world for everyone if nobody had the right to make that decision?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.