Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: lead_large.jpg (178KB, 615x452px) Image search:
[Google]
178KB, 615x452px
>To kill for murder is a punishment incomparably worse than the crime itself. Murder by legal sentence is immeasurably more terrible than murder by brigands. Anyone murdered by brigands, whose throat is cut at night in a wood, or something of that sort, must surely hope to escape till the very last minute. There have been instances when a man has still hoped for escape, running or begging for mercy after his throat was cut. But in the other case all that last hope, which makes dying ten times as easy, is taken away FOR CERTAIN. There is the sentence, and the whole awful torture lies in the fact that there is certainly no escape, and there is no torture in the world more terrible. You may lead a soldier out and set him facing the cannon in battle and fire at him and he'll still hope; but read a sentence of certain death over the same soldier, and he will go out of his mind or burst into tears. Who can tell whether human nature is able to bear this without madness? Why this hideous, useless, unnecessary outrage? Perhaps there is some man who has been sentenced to death, been exposed to this torture and has been told 'you can go, you are pardoned.' Perhaps such a man could tell us. It was of this torture and of this agony that Christ spoke, too. No, you can't treat a man like that!"
Well was Dostoevsky right ?
>>
>>34053776
>Who can tell whether human nature is able to bear this without madness?
We all are sentenced to death already, in effect, by the limit of our lifespans. And this is something ALL of us must and have come to accept.
The unnatural sentence of death may at first cause someone to feel unease but is it not in essence the same as a natural one? If someone is capable of accepting the first why would they not be capable of accepting the other?
>>
>>34053776
He's totally right. Violent criminals do not deserve trials or the legal protection of laws they deprive their victims. Violent criminals should be hunted down and executed. Anything less is worst than murder.
Based dosteovsky
>>
>>34053776
so his argument against the death penalty is
>it hurts the criminals feelings
(There's a better argument)
It's JUST to take life, liberty and property in retribution through due process from felons who have infringed on the natural rights to life, liberty and property of other individuals, HOWEVER, seeing how the STATE is capable of restoring liberty and property, at least in part, if improperly seized, they can never restore life. The chances of making an error are too severe.
>>
>>34053776
On the other hand when you're sentenced to death you're at least given time to prepare for it. It's not some weird spurious interruption to your plotline that adds uncertainty and confusion, it's a predictable result of other actions you've taken. When you're being murdered you don't have time to think "oh shit I'm dying, better get my stuff and thoughts in order!", especially if you haven't been preoccupied with death before.
Being condemned feels really shitty, but having someone spring the scariest moment of your life on you for no reason is worse imo because it's devoid of meaning.
They're both pretty terrible and it would be way better if nobody was able to hurt anyone but I guess some people like that.
>>
>>34054048
>allow rich people to hunt condemned crimnals for sport
>rich people pay a premium for the opportunity
>televise the sport to generate more money
>money goes towards reimbursing victims' families and society
You may be onto something, anon.
>>
Death penalty is a waste of organs, Body parts, And subjects for medical experimentation.
Violent criminals should be treated as a resource, Not needlessly punished.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1