From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: morality????????
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  5 Nov 92 23:56:49 GMT

dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

>In article <1d6e46INN7e6@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>>From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
>>Subject: Re: morality????????
>>Date: 3 Nov 92 17:49:58 GMT
>>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>: In article <1d3nt2INN7m6@shrike.und.ac.za>, dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>>: > keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>: > : 
>>: > : Capital punishment should be administered only if there is no doubt.
>>: > 
>>: > IMHO, there is NEVER `no doubt'.
>>: 
>>:    Suppose the police catch someone holding a knife, the sharp end
>>: of which is planted in someone else, and the person does not claim
>>: self-defense.  Is there any doubt there?
>>
>>Well, I can't think of any, so I was wrong.  Nonetheless, I believe the death
>>penalty is unnecessary.  Yes, society as a whole can be justified in making
>>decisions which an individual should not be able to make, however it is
>>important that in general in a.a we use killing as a demonstration that
>>the God of the bible is thoroughly rotten, and I believe the same can be said
>>of a society which chooses to kill its members.  We are not perfect moral
>>judges.

>Counterargument: a murderer is no longer a member of society -- he has 
>renounced his membership by breaking the laws.

>In addition, the death penalty is not about morality, at least not in my 
>opinion. It is defense. Can you name one person who, after being executed, 
>became a repeat offender?
>+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
>| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
>+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+

Precisely, here's a couple of other backing points. If we allow a murderer
or rapist to continue in this society, they are contributing to the violence
of the society we live in in more than one way. Not only are they likely
repeat perpetrators, but they are likely to influence others who may not
have been violent and also are given the opportunity to reproduce and raise
kids with a role model murderer or rapist parent. Anyone who commits these
crimes has forfeited their right to remain within our society. I do not
beleive in retribution and I beleive these people have gone beyond a second
chance, they are unsafe to be allowed to live in our society. Many societies
have exiled particularly nasty offenders rather than execute them, maybe
this is a solution.

	Let's evacuate a few islands in the Pacific and
Atlantic with massive recompensation to those removed, and just plonk any
really nasty offenders on this island without any modern convenience and let
them sort out their livelihoods amongst themselves. This would be a pretty
good deterrent as who wants to go to a place where there is no bars or walls
between you and that multi-murderer next door. I vote we just leave them
there as they have forfeited their right to have anything that society can
provide for them. No gaurds, no doctors, no tvs, no electricity, no guns,
nothing, just a picket to make sure no-one gets in with a method to get
out and who cares if they get overcrowded.

Jeff.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic