No, I don't think the death penalty is a good thing. It's just a way for people to wipe their hands clean from the problem. Also people change over time, who are we to judge their future?
Marie Curie was a scientist to her it was a good thing. Thought it did probably shorten her and her daughters lives considerably due to the exposure to it.
I don't think death penalty is the answer for every problem; I mostly think so because I don't believe in the infaillability and incorruptibility of justice. I'm convinced innocents were already killed in several cases, with or without our knowing.
No, I don't think the death penalty is a good thing. It's just a way for people to wipe their hands clean from the problem. Also people change over time, who are we to judge their future?
Agreed.
What about Marie Curie? She didn't build bombs now did she? She made a great discovery that, like many others, needs responsible hands to form good and useful things out of it; it isn't the fault of the discoverer if some use it to kill people. It may kill a lot of people, but that is only the side that marks us the most. There are other uses for it that we would miss if Curie didn't make this discover. We are just less aware of them. (On the other side, we could very well survive without this discovery, what can't be said about the victims)
Curie didn't discover radiation, she named it and found out that only some elements gave it off. Discovery is pretty much split between Wilhelm Rontgen and Henri Becquerel. And yes, it is very very very very very very very very very VERY important that we know radiation exists. Imagine if we discovered radiation today and started using it as a hip alternative energy source or a silly health-food store medicine or something.
And the death penalty is an extremely difficult topic to discuss, as a lot of the arguments for both sides are based on what-ifs. However, if the person is, say, the leader of a drug cartel or a war criminal or something, I see no problem with killing that person after getting the necessary information. Prisons and society have no place for those people, and likely-as-not they'd just end up being killed in prison by an angry mob, like Jeffrey Dahmer was.
I think some crimes and criiminals probably do deserve the death penalty. However, the chance of an innocent being killed due to such a law is too great a risk to take.
That and because life imprisonment seems worse than death to me, so I'd rather those that commit truly despicable acts don't get the mercy shown to their victims.
I'm still in favour of fight pits - Put all the prisoners on death row in a big coliseum-style arena and let them duke it out to the death. The victor gains freedom.
Marie Curie Discovered Uranium which creates atom bombs... is she a good scientist or a bad scientist?
she discovered radioactivity. And no, can i say whoever invented the sword, sling, rifle, or spear is a bad person? Not directly, no i can't at that point in time, but from a bit farther down the road i would have to say whoever is using the technology ( in this case whoever used the atom bomb and such).
Wait, if Uranium is used for electricity, is that really safe? I know that Uranium is radioactive and that's mainly what caused her death too. So, here's my question. Is that electricty made from Uranium, radioactive or is it completely safe?
Nuclear Power Plants? well no, the nuclear cells heat water to high temperatures, which is then used to create electricity.
And electricity cannot become radioactive dude >.> . that's like saying i could poison you with a torch ( for sake of argument no additives)
I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I know the death penalty doesn't necessarily deter criminals from murdering, since most of the time murderers are either nuts, or so bent on killing their victims they will do it regardless of the consequences.
I think life in any maximum security prison (without a chance of parole) seems like punishment enough.
The bien pensant liberal inside of me says even that is too harsh, since it implies murderers are beyond redemption. This isn't true in all I cases, I wouldn't think, insofar as crimes of passion go. However if a more robust system of differentiation between manslaughter and murder was created, I think the punishment would fit the crime, just about.
No, she discovered that not all elements were radioactive, and she named it. Common misconception.
And on the death penalty, I'm pretty much in agreement with firefly here. As far as murderers go, the death penalty does little as a deterrent because of the extreme nature of the average murderer.
Although for cases of unusual criminality, such as genocide, war crimes, and the like, I see no need to keep that person alive.
Although for cases of unusual criminality, such as genocide, war crimes, and the like, I see no need to keep that person alive.
Although I'm sure many would think it is satisfying to see Milosovic or Hitler given the rope or the chair, I think it would be far more satisfying to imagine them rotting in a horrible jail somewhere, reduced from emperor to prisoner. Delicious irony really. Indeed, I remember driving past the castle in Scotland where the Nazi Rudolf Hess was held during WW2 after he tried to negotiate an alliance with the Brits on the eve of Barbarossa. Thinking that one of those arrogant goose steppers was imprisoned for life filled me with glee, which no doubt would have been absent if he'd been summarily executed in 1941.
I think you're talking about nuclear power created by something like fission, and yes, the power itself is perfectly safe. However, there is radioactive waste created by the process of fission, which is why fusion is a better choice. If only we could manufacture fusion, the energy crisis would pretty much be solved. And yes, Marie Curie and her husband(for some reason everyone credits Marie solely, when in fact her husband Pierre helped just as much) discovered a good thing. It was simply put to bad use. The same can be said about many things. And why is the death penalty and Curie's discovery put in the same thread? They're totally different things. As for the death penalty, it will save a lot of time and money to just execute them. As for the people saying it's unethical? The life-in-prison without parole sentence is basically killing them, but they'll die twenty or thirty years later. They will still never leave jail. And it also eliminates the possibility of escape. I know that killing someone because they killed someone seems convoluted, but it is a fitting(eye for eye) punishment and it ascertains that they won't be doing it again.
Not true, in case someone is retrospectively proven innocent, they can still be released.
And it also eliminates the possibility of escape.
The same point is much more relevant here. Under the judicial system, people should be able to be released if they are wrongfully convicted. With the death penalty you don't get that option.
Not true, in case someone is retrospectively proven innocent, they can still be released. The same point is much more relevant here. Under the judicial system, people should be able to be released if they are wrongfully convicted. With the death penalty you don't get that option.
Why do you think we spend so much money on death penalty trials if not to make absolutely certain that the person is guilty?
Why do you so many people have been retrospectively been proven innocent?
The high cost of executing someone is related not to a pursuit for the truth but a constitutional obligation to give everyone a certain number of hearings before they are executed. Execution verdicts are very rarely overturned once handed down.
