Comment by consumer451
12 hours ago
> or even capital punishment
You lost me at that part. It is entirely unreasonable to consider that in the vast majority of the world, where state-sanctioned killing of citizens has been abolished.
12 hours ago
> or even capital punishment
You lost me at that part. It is entirely unreasonable to consider that in the vast majority of the world, where state-sanctioned killing of citizens has been abolished.
The OP wrote:
> capital punishment for such gross negligence
"gross negligence" is a very specific legal test.
> Gross negligence is a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gross_negligence
Your viewpoint sounds good in argument on forums, and I'm sure it scores you points.
But there's a reason they used to execute people in the public square.
And people flocked to watch executions - for entertainment.
Capital punishment has never been about deterrence, nor has it ever been an effective deterrent.
But that reason wasn't good.
Tell that to the relatives of the dead. What you said was true and today is true. But will it be true tomorrow?