bucs90
Gold Member
- Feb 25, 2010
- 26,545
- 6,028
- 280
Morality has little to do with my opposition to capital punishment. War is war and, being human beings, must be conducted from time to time.oy
The difference between the Nazis and Jeff Dalhmer is: one is a national government, the other and individual. In the case of national governments doing wrongs against society or another National government, war can be declared.
When an individual commits crimes here in the United States of America, we conduct something called a trial. During that trial, evidence of the crime is presented and the individual on trial gets a chance at defending himself.
Fair enough. But: Are the two acts equally horrible morally? Dahmers 13 (not sure exact count) victims vs the Nazi's millions. Each life was equally seen with worth by the society. But the Nazi's were punished by death. Dahmer....you argue...should have been kept alive on society's payroll.
Equal atrocity should recieve equal punishment, in my opinion. If there were 100 Jeffrey Dahmers running rampant in a town killing hundreds, its no doubt the local SWAT teams would be sent to hunt them down and kill them, correct?
Capital punishment PRESUMES the one thing Conservatives can never presume: that the state is infallible, correct, efficient and fair.
One mistake, one incompetent defense attorney, one coerced confession and a human life hangs in the balance. DNA evidence has freed countless innocent people. What makes anyone think that the same government that cannot be trusted with providing health insurance can suddenly be trusted with executing someone without making a mistake?
The same state that declares war enforces domestic law. How can they be trusted to kill one set of humans for crimes against humanity (Nazis, Taliban) but not for the individuals who commit the same act of death against our neighbors?
Evil exists, abroad and domestically. And should be killed.
HOWEVER, I will concede that the death penalty should be issued for ONLY the most horrible crimes, with overwhelming evidence. And possibly even expand the situation somehow, to a jury review of the convicting jury. Or something. Can't make mistakes with the DP, you're right about that. I think we must have that option though.