Quote:
Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza
I'm surprised nobody else commented on the other thread "Good News" despite nearly 160 views.I stand by what I said,I would have made the death penalty available to the jury in his case.
|
I would bet, that if the death penalty was available to the judge/jury, it would likely have had to have been rescinded due to health and safety laws.
That said, with whole.life tariffs, I dont see the point of maintaining a life at the expense of the tax payer. But again, I am conflicted in that for the perpetrator to receive the death penalty, it is essentially the same as murder (causing the premeditated death of another). It is the same reason I am.opposed to war. But equally, I do not have a solution/alternative to either.
I do not think him and some others should be permitted to breathe, let alone walk the streets ever again.
Torture, til death could be a possibility, as death would not be the ultimate aim, vengeance with a deterrent factor to others, but if it happened, meh
perhaps simply locked up into a room without food or water? would that create a deterrent for at least some of those potential.murderers of the future?
With whole.life tariffs, punishments are not punishments (nor is the death penalty either). A punishment, suggests a possibility of corrective behaviour, and therefore the potential for release to do better in the future. Therefore a whole life tariff, needs to be a deterrent, rather than a punishment.
Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk