Canada Proposes Life Sentences For Free Speech Crimes
Nah, death penalty should’ve been abolished a long time ago. Sure, let some people rot in jail, but…
Morally, it’s a grey area, but I’d let those criminals stay in prison, a lower quality prison, sure, but someone murdering someone else does not excuse us committing it in turn. An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind, and it does nothing for justice, the sanctity of life, or for the families of those murdered themselves. The best way to deal with crime is to increase the certainty of punishment, not the severity. If everyone knew they’d get caught, and be sentenced to prison, then doing the crime sounds a lot less appealing, since most everyone thinks they’d be able to avoid punishment. The law is built upon decisions of the people and those at the heads of government, which can be changed whenever society sees fit. Personally, I think it’s long overdue that we abandon the death penalty as a whole. It’s repercussions are surprisingly small, and most often signify a society that’s been able to actually deal with the justice system in a good manner.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
This whole notion that you can't prevent crime by severely punishing it is stupid. In fact, the more severe the punishment, the less of that crime you'll have. Death Penalty is ultimate punishment.
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
Death penalty is an attempt of a deterrent, and a rather weak one at that. Of the few countries where it works, Singapore is the main example, a nation that has sacrificed much of its liberties and rights to lower crime using harsh capital punishment. At the same time, nations like Denmark, Iceland, and Canada have lower crime levels than most others on earth, yet all 3 have no death penalty to speak of. Most nations on earth have rid themselves of it, and their crime rates are fine. You can try to fix it with severe penalties, but you have to expand government power dramatically higher to do so. That’s been the case with Singapore, and remains the case with a lot of countries. Treating the cause of the crime is a FAR better option than punishing the action far worse than usual.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
So you're simultaneously crying out about the alleged injustice of punishing to any worthy degree degenerate murderous scumbags who kill innocent people while at the same time proclaiming as a positive good the industrialised butchery of one million innocent unborn children per year without realising the absurd contradiction? For me, it's quite the opposite scenario: I want to put to justice the murderous scumbags who kill innocent people while protecting with the full power of the law millions of innocent human beings from massacre. In both instances my goal is to protect innocent… Read more
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
I factor in both my own thought process of the moral value of a fetus and the moral value of a criminal. I see the criminal to be higher because we cannot decide the fate of the born with a threat of death, because it’s never given us the right to attack them once they’re in prison. A fetus has far less moral value than that of a fully grown person, and yes, I do not care what that person has done. If that person is currently committing a crime and you can take them out with death, do whatever you please, but once they’re in prison, they remain alive, because the goal of the… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
A fetus has far less moral value than that of a fully grown person
Disgusting, morally reprehensible, and scientifically ignorant. As I have said so many times before, it does not matter that the unborn child cannot think logically; there are plenty adults who cannot think logically and using the child's mental capacity as justification for his murder is disgusting and has equally horrible implications for the already-born. Using the child's inability to feel pain eat certain stages is also logically bankrupt and has disgusting and horrific implications for the already-born, logicall… Read more