Just Another Political Post.

[Minionman]

There is no enjoyment involved, so you are wrong again.  As to your deterrent reply, more nonsense from you, par for the course.

You and I are done on this topic.  We disagree.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89892[/snapback][/right]

My deterrent reply makes perfect sense. If you don't agre, fine. If you want to pretend not to understand the way I described it, in very clear terms, than you either a) assume I am stupid for disagreeing, or B) not interested in arguing, so looking for a fast way out. I am making my arguments, if you have a useful argument back, do so.

To repeat again, the deterrence effect may come from the effect on other people. Since you haven't made any argument with a number of other posts, from other people, on this thread, I'm assuming one of the two above conditions.

As for the enjoyment, revenge may not be as "enjoyable" as, say, not having had a crime happen in the first place, but deciding on the death penalty to get revenge, your word, vs. asking for anything to get them out of the system does in fact sound like a decision to get the most enjoyment as possible out of the situation. Someone may call it "twisted" or say, "have the less grief", or "take the anger out", but overall the deaht penalty is still for a person to feel better than usual. That's where the "enjoyment" comes from. Again, more posts on this are in the thread.

To get back on track, the death penalty only ends up woth it if it encourages more people to avoid killing than it kills by mistake. If this happens, its useful, if not, it should get dumped. I think that is the point of all my arguments before.