Comment by freedomben
3 years ago
That's genuinely horrifying, and I don't find many opinions horrifying.
Are you being serious or trolling? If serious, I hope people don't kill your comment because this is one I think should be discussed.
3 years ago
That's genuinely horrifying, and I don't find many opinions horrifying.
Are you being serious or trolling? If serious, I hope people don't kill your comment because this is one I think should be discussed.
I'm not sure you can discuss someone out of a position like this through a screen. Or if you can, I'd very much like to see that.
Some people want to solve problems with violence. And if that didn't work, you simply need more violence.
It's as old as humanity. Sadly not a difference of values easily solved by discussion.
> Some people want to solve problems with violence. And if that didn't work, you simply need more violence.
Yes, that's one of the definitions of a criminal. Using violence against them is a natural and the most effective answer.
> Are you being serious or trolling?
I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison.
If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. Even if you just hire them to mow your law, hire them. See for yourself.
> I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison.
That's not something you can do by changing sentencing guidelines, since sentencing guidelines are, as the name suggests, guidelines for setting sentences within the statutory bounds for the underlying offenses.
If you mean setting statutory special circumstances for all felonies (essentially, all crimes already otherwise punishable by one year or more in prison) such that the there is a mandatory minimum of death if the offender has previously spent 10 years or more in prison, combined, for any combination of reasons, well, then that's both ludicrously bad policy and clearly, under existing Constitutional jurisprudence, an Eighth Amendment violation—see, particularly, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), holding that it is unconstitutional to apply the penalty of death to a crime against an individual (leaving open some things like treason, drug kingpin activity, etc., where the principal offense is not against a particular individual victim) where the victim does not die. This would apply to the vast majority of existing non-capital felonies.
> If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself.
If we're going to adopt capital punishment for crimes by anyone I wouldn't want to hire, well, that's going to be a lot broader than “people who have been in prison at keast 10 years”.
Not sure what the two things have to do with each other, though.
What's there to discuss? Some people think that the Holocaust was a good start. And Germany didn't have trouble staffing its concentration camps with eager soldiers. Genocides begin with the view that a population is less than human.
And now we are seeing the same happening again in Gaza perpetrated by the old victims.