JKAsiege

Fail quoting FTW

I find that reasoning very logical. But whether it's the truth or not is probably very hard to study.

Sakke wrote:I find that reasoning very logical. But whether it's the truth or not is probably very hard to study.

That's why I said of my own reasoning. I don't have any official knowledge to back it up.

Genetics, epigenetics, and behavior are very difficult to tease apart in order to establish a cause-effect relationship. They all just effect probability imo. When you get right down to it a person with horrible genetics for anger can learn effective ways to vent anger that don't endanger other people. Whereas someone else may never learn safe ways to cope. In a way, when we convict someone we are damning them because of what they are. We also don't believe they can learn to be different, or don't believe that they can change with what resources we have at the time, or that it would be too risky to try. Is it wrong to execute someone for something they can't really control? I don't think so if we do it because we can't afford to allow that person to continue to hurt others. As a punishment for crimes it is, perhaps, not right.

Sakke wrote:

MajorMajor wrote:Many criminals, murderers, don't think through their actions. So for those who kill in the heat of the moment nothing is a deterrent. The deterrent factor of the death penalty is most easily found in the fact that if the person is executed they will be permanently deterred from comitting any future crimes. It is best used upon those who cannot for whatever reason be redeemed. (I should say those who CHOOSE not to be redeemed).

One thing I'd really like to know, but is probably hard to study: Two unrelated men have for some unknown reason identical minds. Then, one of them kills his wife for cheating. Now, is any one of them more likely to kill another person than the other? And who?

Also Guard, I'm having trouble understanding your post, me being foreign and all. Are you saying that 'death penalty might prevent some crimes from happening, but not nearly enough'?

I meant, if we could prove that having a death penalty in places where there currently is no death penalty would prevent at least ONE future crime from happening, could we then say it is worth it to start having a death penalty? And on the flip side, what if we accidentally executed at least ONE innocent man in the future, is not having a death penalty worth it to save that man?

инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинйоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфо
инфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоинфоtuchkasинфоинфо