Death Penalty, General R. Blie…
For my view on the over/under 18 issue, see my comment on The Noy G Show. However, I wanted to use this comment to explain my view of the death penalty in general.
My basic view is that I am all for the death penalty. God was for it (see The Bible by God). He (yes, He) even wanted the death penalty to be pretty gruesome, not some sort of wimpy lethal injection. The only question is - who should get it?
The answer is simple - anyone who is convicted to life without parole should be killed. The basic reason that a person has a "right" to live is that he can contribute to society. Not that the person must contribute, but he has the potential to contribute to society. Once a person is spending the rest of his life in jail with no chance of getting out, he no longer can contribute to society in any meaningful way. By definition, prison removes him from society. As such, he is just deadweight (no pun intended).
If a person will never be paroled, why should I (as a taxpayer) pay for him to remain alive? Paying taxes is an investment in government. If the government supports this person in jail, where is the return to the taxpayer. (Almost every other government spending can potentially provide a return. Even welfare, arguably, which gives the poor money, provides the taxpayer a return by making the poor less likely to steal from a taxpayer to get that money.) Simply, anyone convicted to life without parole should, instead, be put to death. Once they are buried, they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer.
The most common liberal argument against this logic is that death "costs" more than life in prison. Thats a bunch of crap. First, even under the current system, this is a debatable point. In addition, there is a simple reform that easily makes the death penalty cheaper - corporate sponsorship. Beheadings were a major attraction in France. Hangings always brought capacity crowds. Modern day executions could easily get Super Bowl sized ratings on television, especially if they get creative. I am sure Ford would pay millions to have some murderer be forced to suck on a tailpipe. Imagine how much Orville Redenbacher would pay to have someone holding a bag of popcorn on the electric chair. Under this system, a handful of executions would pay for the entire penal system (and maybe even social security).
This system would be great fun for the whole family. They could even have some sort of American Idol type of interactive event, where the viewers vote on the type of death. (In fact, I wish American Idol let us vote on whether to kill the singer. If they did, Clay would have definitely beat Ruben.)
In summary, instead of using taxpayer money to keep prisoners with no hope of parole in already overcrowded jails, the government should publicly execute them and raise money at the same time by offering corporate sponsorships. [Note: this argument is just as valid for a 16 year old as a 80 year old. There is no reason to go into the type of distinctions the Supreme Court is worried about.]--General R. Blie
My basic view is that I am all for the death penalty. God was for it (see The Bible by God). He (yes, He) even wanted the death penalty to be pretty gruesome, not some sort of wimpy lethal injection. The only question is - who should get it?
The answer is simple - anyone who is convicted to life without parole should be killed. The basic reason that a person has a "right" to live is that he can contribute to society. Not that the person must contribute, but he has the potential to contribute to society. Once a person is spending the rest of his life in jail with no chance of getting out, he no longer can contribute to society in any meaningful way. By definition, prison removes him from society. As such, he is just deadweight (no pun intended).
If a person will never be paroled, why should I (as a taxpayer) pay for him to remain alive? Paying taxes is an investment in government. If the government supports this person in jail, where is the return to the taxpayer. (Almost every other government spending can potentially provide a return. Even welfare, arguably, which gives the poor money, provides the taxpayer a return by making the poor less likely to steal from a taxpayer to get that money.) Simply, anyone convicted to life without parole should, instead, be put to death. Once they are buried, they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer.
The most common liberal argument against this logic is that death "costs" more than life in prison. Thats a bunch of crap. First, even under the current system, this is a debatable point. In addition, there is a simple reform that easily makes the death penalty cheaper - corporate sponsorship. Beheadings were a major attraction in France. Hangings always brought capacity crowds. Modern day executions could easily get Super Bowl sized ratings on television, especially if they get creative. I am sure Ford would pay millions to have some murderer be forced to suck on a tailpipe. Imagine how much Orville Redenbacher would pay to have someone holding a bag of popcorn on the electric chair. Under this system, a handful of executions would pay for the entire penal system (and maybe even social security).
This system would be great fun for the whole family. They could even have some sort of American Idol type of interactive event, where the viewers vote on the type of death. (In fact, I wish American Idol let us vote on whether to kill the singer. If they did, Clay would have definitely beat Ruben.)
In summary, instead of using taxpayer money to keep prisoners with no hope of parole in already overcrowded jails, the government should publicly execute them and raise money at the same time by offering corporate sponsorships. [Note: this argument is just as valid for a 16 year old as a 80 year old. There is no reason to go into the type of distinctions the Supreme Court is worried about.]--General R. Blie
posted by EDS | 12:06 AM
3 Comments:
I'm conflicted: I don't think the state should be doing the very thing they deem unlawful but I do agree that life in prison is a waste of money and effort. Alive or dead, I do think there is a way to make use of these people. For instance: Alive, they could be training stray dogs to become companion/working dogs for the disabled which is a program already in practice. If they must be executed, why not donate all of their viable organs to people in need? This would of course mean lethal injection and execution would be out of the question.
would u seriously want to have John Gacey's liver? or heart for that matter?
Or Jeffrey Dahmer's stomach? or bladder?
If it meant it would save my life, yes. If I needed a brain transplant, I'd so no thanks, but otherwise, yes, sign me up.
Post a Comment
<< Home