EvMick@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/24/98 9:17:36 AM Central Standard Time, talon57@well.com
> writes:
>
> >
> > Second,I feel that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment
> > for the unlawful and malicious killing of a fellow human being.
> >
>
> That's all that needs to be said about it then. A punishment that fits the
> crime. Deterrance etc doesn't enter into the argument. However the death
> penalty does prevent multiple offenses....
I always prefer an effective deterrent rather than having to go through the expense and bother of a final solution. The emphasis, though, is on EFFECTIVE.
>
Hardly. Putting a profit motive before the state would cause the state to seek to
expand the penalty to more and more crimes. Even, and especially, in a popular
democracy, with an aging population, there will be public pressure to expand the
penalty to more and more crimes. Larry Niven discussed this in many of his Known
Space stories.
>
> or as retroman@together.net (Michael Lorrey) so eloquently states.....
>
> >Contrasting this with the huge deterrent effect that allowing law abiding
> citizens
> >to carry concealed weapons has on violent crimes, we can surmise that
> >the only effective form of death penalty is one which is exacted at the
> >crime scene. No technicalities, no appeals.
>
> I can agree with that....
>
> However in state sponsored executions I would like to see the method changed.
> I think total body organ harvesting would be much more appropriate.
Mike Lorrey