Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
the gun'' ) wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:10:15 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more
>> time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who
>>>> brought the gun'' )" wrote in
>>>> news:48EA6D16.98FD3D12@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Rennie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Punishment is supposed
>>>>>> to be useful for those that live. It is supposed to teach them
>>>>>> not to transgress again or they'll get punished again. But as
>>>>>> I posted above I don't take a moral stand on capital punishment
>>>>>> - I'm a pragmatic abolitionist. I think it's antique and it
>>>>>> places the US on the bottom rung of so called civilised
>>>>>> countries as well as being a great waste of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you've addressed how it does give another level of
>>>>> punishment which would discourage people from killing all the
>>>>> witnesses.
>>>>
>>>> Post your proof that the DP "discourages people
>>>> from killing all the witnesses"
>>>>
>>> It's pure logic. If there is nothing worse that can happen to you
>>> beyond life in lockup and what you've already done warrants life in
>>> lockup, why not do whatever you can to minimize getting caught, why
>>> not kill all the witnesses and burn down the hotel?
>>
>> If what you've already done warrants the death penalty why not kill
>> all the witnesses?
>>
> That doesn't apply to OJ in the instant case. I would agree that
> finding ways to make it in the criminal's interest not to kill all
> the witnesses and burn down all the buildings is in order.
So how would your absurd assertion to lock up all ". criminals"
for life achieve that?
|