---

by Chambler
(quotes)
If we look back into recent history (lets say 60 - 70 years) we see the Germans applying this style of thinking to mentally and physically handicapped and look what they did with it.

---

*blinks* - did you just call me a Nazi? *resists temptation to invoke Godwins Law*

OK, to clarify - I didn't say that we should exterminte the "useless" population - I'm just asking what can we do that would actually *work* when some people appear beyond saving.

As for arming our police - they don't have the best record when it comes to handling firearms, do they?

---

by Kate
(quotes)
*blinks* - did you just call me a Nazi? *resists temptation to invoke Godwins Law*

---

If I would have wanted to do so I would have made it more clear Just trying to show whats on the bottom end of the slippery slope that a nation would embark on when you would employ the death penalty for (or give up on) those people who will never have a positive or neutral contribution to society.

To me that means we should keep trying to find new ways to rehabilitate these people (or if there really isn't another option lock them up in such a way thats humane to them and safe for society) just to keep us of the slippery slope. Because if you start putting people to death the next brilliant idea is to put them to death in a hospital enviroment so their organs can be harvested so at least that way they have a positive contribution to society.

And with an ever aging population the waiting lists for donor organs might be reduced at first but eventually creep up again.... At than more and more crimes will become punishable by death (due to changes in the legal system by sheer pressure of an ever aging population that demands to live longer). Sounds like a pretty good book.... and guess what, it is

Byron, you give up too easily. Killing is wrong. You know it, I know it, and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows. It just needs saying out loud sometimes.

Kate, I doubt anyone thinks you're a Nazi. Or even similar. But the argument you're applying isn't a million miles away. Surely it can be said that those who commit violent crimes, and are beyond redemption are useless to society? And that if we cannot redeem them then paying for them to stay in accommodation and to feed them, only to later release them back into society to commit more violent crime, well that's just wrong, isn't it?

Unfortunately, aside from my first objection, the problem is that acting in such a manner means that innocent people will die as well as the guilty. And personally, I cannot condone the killing of innocents. Ever. Better to lock them up, try to rehabilitate, and if you fail, don't let them out. Ever. Unless you find out they weren't guilty in the first place. At least then you can let them out. Which is better than just saying sorry to their grave.

As for the whole 'a copper was killed by gunshot, so let's give them all guns' - until someone can tell me how a gun stops a bullet from killing someone I won't take the argument seriously. That maybe all coppers should wear bullet-proof vests, well that at least has some logic to it.

Laters

[must .. remember .. to .. proof-read! Should that be too or to...?]

(Edited by Jayjay 25/11/2005 10:20)

---

by Jayjay
Byron, you give up to easily. Killing is wrong. You know it, I know it, and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows. It just needs saying out loud sometimes.

---

Just the opposite, I want to start winning.

Everyone here doesn't believe killing is wrong. I could bellow it from the top of a minaret through a 150db speaker and they still wouldn't believe it. On the contrary, most people think killing murderers is right, because vengeance is the easiest answer. Convince them it doesn't work on the other hand, and you're in with a chance. The spreading belief execution fails in its stated objectives is what's finally turning the tide against the gurney stateside.

Well over the last few weeks we have been seeing some main characters in the Dutch criminal underworld being killed in professional hits and a lot of people here have a lot less trouble with these people getting killed than if the same number of people would be killed in a shooting in a primary school. Because the criminals were killing each other and no other people got hurt (shot) in the process doesn't make the killers new national heroes or anything as it is still wrong. However if they are cleaning each other up in a relativly clean way.... is that such a bad thing?

So public opinion does have its shades of grey when it comes to killing but I honestly hope that the number of people who actually think that murder is right (being it by vigilantes or be it state executed after a trial...) is limited. You'll always have people that will support the death penalty (or vigilantes) however aslong as this is a small minority (which isn't willing to act on it themselves) this shouldn't be too much of an issue.