Oh my word - guess what? She didn't do it!

From Timber Loftis :
Don't you see a contradiction there ? Some vicious circle ?
You are clearly talking about killing someone there. Are you better than her after all ?

If you really care about life, like you are trying to show us, then you don't (want to) kill anyone.

I think the worst part is you want to do that in public.

What good can it make ?

Ah well, if it were up to me I'd try and find out why she wants to kill her kids and work from there. If it can be "cured" for want of a better word, then lets do that. If rehabilitation is a possibility then lets do that. In this case, as in all others in my opinion, the utility loss to the person concerned due to the loss of life overrides any possible (and in this particular case very minimal) utility gain from killing her. I do not believe she should be killed or punished just because she did something wrong. If it would discourage other people from her course of action then punishment might be a good idea, but I don't think that that is applicable in this case. Most people don't need discouraging from killing children, especially their own. The people that do need discouraging aren't going to be all that affected by the idea of prison or death I think. The idea of killing your own children, even without those particular consequences attached to it, is a big step alone. Stopping people making that step in the first place would be my idea.

Don't you see a contradiction there ? Some vicious circle ?
You are clearly talking about killing someone there. Are you better than her after all ?

If you really care about life, like you are trying to show us, then you don't (want to) kill anyone.

I think the worst part is you want to do that in public.

What good can it make ?</font>[/QUOTE]If we follow this notion to its logical conclusion, we disprove the entire legal system - both criminal and civil. If it is wrong to imprison someone in your home, you can't do it in society. If it is wrong to steal, you can't have a court order the money back. If it is wrong to breach a contract...

See what I mean??

Doing it in public makes a proper spectacle out of it - a better deterrent I think. Now, this also attracts a frenzied wacko crowd, but the wackos in this world today are so easily attracted to anything, we must simply ignore this fact. I think the spectacle occuring in front of a gallows is simply more poignant that it occurring at the prison gates. The folks at the prison gates cheer and act a fool, cause it's not in their face. But, and anyone who has ever watch the life leave a human being can attest to this, killing someone in public will certainly have a profound effect on at least some of the spectators.

That is the good it can make.

On the utilitarian side, a swift and quick death for those who purposely take another's life also avoids a lot of expense and wasted personnel time. Social efficiency, you see.

Punishment?, like a kind of society's vengeance against the criminals?, you have a curious sense of justice.

Timber Loftis you wrote:

*Doing it in public makes a proper spectacle out of it - a better deterrent I think. Now, this also attracts a frenzied wacko crowd, but the wackos in this world today are so easily attracted to anything, we must simply ignore this fact. I think the spectacle occuring in front of a gallows is simply more poignant that it occurring at the prison gates. The folks at the prison gates cheer and act a fool, cause it's not in their face. But, and anyone who has ever watch the life leave a human being can attest to this, killing someone in public will certainly have a profound effect on at least some of the spectators.*

I can't agree here. We had for centuries gallows, goulioutines (sp?) and whatever. The convicted were treated in the most cruel ways before they've been torn into pieces for every kind of crime and everything happened in public. Following your conclusion (don't get me wrong, I dont want to pick at you or offend you!) earth should be a peaceful place now. But I can't recognize any profound effect. Though I must admit, that the human approach (if it is that) doesn't seem to work either. Maybe we still didn't find the right way to deal with this kind of things :(

life but life should mean life.

Howsabout REPROGRAMMING, a la Clockwork Orange??

I think that would fall under 'cruel and unusual' punishment

*Throws hands in air in disgust*

Can someone please explain to me why it is okay to deny someone freedom of movement (note, this IS on the UN Human Rights list) yet it is not okay to deny them the right to life???

I just don't get it. If their right to life is *that* sacred, in my mind it only means their punishment should INCREASE to repay society for the life they took.

Sure are a lot of namby-pambys here for a forum where most everyone has whacked Noober at least once. :D