"Joe E. Dees" wrote:>
> > > I reiterate that deterrence is a rational reason to support the death
> Ok, I iterate that deterrence is a rational reason to support limb removal of children. If we chop thearms
> > > penalty, and restate that deterrence does work in the case of the
> > > murderer who, once executed, will never kill again. You may not like
> > > the fact that it is both rational and true, but your emotional reaction
> > > has nothing to do with the logical consistency of this position.
> >
> Paul wrote:
> off of all children who grab things they are not supposed too, they will never grab those things again. You
> may not like the fact that it is both rational and true, but your emotional reaction has nothing to do with
> the logical consistency of this position.
>
> Joe wrote:
> Your counterexample is logically flawed in the following manner:
> As well as being a deterrent to further slayings,
> proportional the crime to execute murderers, for one is simply doing
> to them what they have done to others.
So were right back to an "eye for an eye" which is the classic motto of those seeking revenge. Following suit with this logic we should start raping all of the convicted rapists. Are you volunteering for this job?
Paul Hughes