blatham wrote:As to the question of the thread...it's a silly false dilemma, as has been pointed out previously. "Love it or leave it" is for folks who have the brain power of a car bumper.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . . ah yer a bad man, boyo . . .
I would also like to add to the "deterrent" question--it's a scam for several reasons. The first is that this assumes that those commiting criminal acts have given careful thought to their actions in advance. I've said for many years that crime does not pay because of the calibre of those who go into the profession. By and large, thought and criminal are mutually exclusive terms. Criminals don't "plan" on being apprehended, so deterence is a concept which offers a "moral" (disgusting word) fig leaf for the blood thirsty who want to present their retributive lust in a better light. In fact, murder in the commission of other crimes probably comes as much a surprise to the perpetrator as to the victim. That they may be by nature viciously murderous i would not deny--are we to sink to the childish argument of "he did it first!" to justify the state taking lives? In a crime of passion, it is not unreasonable to assume that no thought took place before the knife was shoved in or the trigger pulled. In
Beyond Good and Evil, Neitzsche points out that criminals look upon apprehension as bad fortune, the simile he uses is "like being caught in a rock slide while walking in the mountains." There is no reason, and no data, which leads me to believe in capital punishment as deterrent. Adding to that the problem of guilt or innocence which i and others here have already explored, and i arrive at much the same conclusion as that reached by the Governor of Illinois not long ago--that there should be no executions when the possibility of excecuting the innocent looms so large, when questions of racial bias loom so large, when questions of the effect on the collective
ethos of society loom so large. State murder is a bad idea all around.