Lethal Injection Under Fire Again

[GriffonSpade]

It's the government's job. 

A 12 year old is not legally allowed to live without guardianship, not legally allowed not to attend school, etc. for good reason - the welfare of the child.  These "limits" are not to be left up to the parent to decide, because should the parent choose an alternate path for the child, there is a reasonable social consensus around the idea that that decision would be to the detriment of the child's eventual ability to act as a functioning citizen capable of the rationally revising their own goals / surviving as functioning and contributing members of society capable of reasoned decision - in sum, the child will be damaged. 

The point is this: should the parent choose to condone such an act (illegal sex with someone much older at the age of 12), it amounts to neglect or abuse: there are certain rights that are socially secured for the child.  It is NOT the state's job to dictate the terms of child-rearing to the parents, and there is enormous flexibility allowed to parents in terms of what they teach their children, etc.; however, there are certain limits that cannot be crossed, for the sake of the child, who is not capable of understanding all of the ramifications of certain decisions for him/herself.  One of these limits would be crossed in encouraging or even just condoning the sexual relationship of a 12 year old and a 21 year old, full stop.

I suppose that this boils down to an empirical question: is a 12 year old capable of making such a decision for themselves?  My own suspicion is that if they're choosing to have sex with someone much older than themselves, there's something funny going on, NOT TO MENTION the fact that the person who is having sex with them has some real problems.
[right][snapback]107319[/snapback][/right]

Your suspicion means NOTHING. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What if there ISN'T something funny going on? You're looking at people like statitics, not individuals, and taking away someone's right to choose based on these generalizations. "Reasonable social consensus" AKA "What most people think" is akin to "common sense," and is therefore meaningless. Like I said earlier, just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to deny it to someone else. Even if this consensus is true in general, is it because of the sexual relations themselves or abuses that often come with it? Can you tell me it isn't from the beating, alchoholism, failing schooling, lack of a loving & supportive environment, etc. that isn't causing this and not the relations themselves? Don't assume; don't generalize; give people the chance to prove themselves on an individual basis, or you'll be oppressing people, not protecting them.

What does the death penalty really solve? It doesn't deter crime. It costs much, much more to execute an individual than imprison them for life. It is applied completely arbitrarily. There were 123 death row exonerations since 1973.

When you throw in cases like what happened to Earl Washington ( link: http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab019/e...ngton.html ), I litterally feel sick to my stomach.

I've asked it in previous threads and I'll ask it again... Why are so many people so freakin' bloodthirsty? When does the cycle of murder and killing end? How is it justice to convict someone of a horrible crime against humanity - and then perform said crime against humanity on them in turn at greater expense and while admiting that there is the possibility of them being innocent? There's an identity crisis here.

Can we please just put the Middle Ages and Hammurabi behind us?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
I feel as though people pushing the "prisons are too cushy!" opinion are arguing from the wrong side of the issue on that one. Isn't it more a commentary on how #$%&ty our society is at the moment that people are *trying* to get thrown into jail just so they can have warm meals, air conditioning and a place to sleep? Heaven forbid California take that $114 million and put it into poverty-fighting programs.

It's just one ugly cycle: spend more money to execute people, therefore less support for the downtrodden, therefore more people turn to crime, therefore we spend more money to execute them, therefore there's even less money... Disgusting. It's the only word to describe it. Disgusting

Where's the "Arguing over the internet is like..." .gif when you need it? I need to remind myself every now and then or I get carried away over here on my soapbox.
[right][snapback]107330[/snapback][/right]

It's the methodology that's flawed, not the means themselves. Circumstantial evidence should never allow anything higher than parole, and Execution should require Damning evidence, not a mere conviction. Prison conditions should be determined by the severity of your crime with capital unreformable/unforgivable criminals(murder, rape, severe health & environmental code violations, organized crime, and laundering hundreds of millions of dollars being amongst the worst) having the worst conditions, and repentant/minor/accidental criminals having the best. Executions are insanely expensive because of inefficiency. The cycle of bloodshed and murder ends when people start respecting or at least being courteous to others, everyone has everything they could ever want, and when everyone more or less agrees on everything, or when we lose our free will, or WHEN WE ARE ALL DEAD. To me, when you severely infringe upon another's rights(ie rape, murder, torture, massive theft, slavery) you sacrifice your own. Most of your complaints are about the How, not the what and why.