In talk.politics.guns Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
"Beth In Alaska" wrote:

And I'm with Bo on the eye-for-an-eye crap. If we as a society believe that
certain behavior is wrong, then we can't condone it as a punishment for
criminals. We can't rape rapists as punishment, we can't drive a car into
the family of a drunk driver and we can't kill killers.

Why not? Let the punishment fit the crime. Rape a rapist with a broom
handle until he dies. We should kill killers, preferably the way they
killed their victim. In this case I would advocate concrete overshoes
for the killer, put him chest deep in the water (at low tide)

Also, it would do good to let the victim's family execute the murderer.

What "good" would that be, exactly? Why is revenge "good?"

The death penalty isn't punishment, since it's the loss of freedom or
privileges which is an integral part. Punishment by definition must
have an end, otherwise there's no point.

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a
penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

Suffering and pain END with death, and therefore so does punishment,
One must keep the offender alive in order to administer punishment.
Otherwise, it's murder for convenience.

You say "We should kill killers, preferably the way they
killed their victim." Why?


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com