Nick's Journal
2003-02-06 05:49:43 (UTC)

A case for the death penalty

The problem with idiot liberals is that they're idiots.
they love to take a theory and standardize it across the
board, like being smelly vegetarians. the problem is that
when they argue about something like the death penalty
their rigid defense does not even come down when you look
at specific cases. for example, today i read about some
guy thta got 3 life sentences for raping a 7 year old
girl. that's great, but what i say is that he be put to
death. now i'm assuming that we have outright proven his
now most people will say why the extra shit? why do we
have to take that step to killing him when getting life in
prison is just as bad. well here are my reasons for this
first of all i think that pedophiles are people who have
a "sickness", their inclinations are due to a
psychological imbalance, and therefore i believe that
anything less than life imprisonment is just asking for
them to do it again. now that still doesn't give a good
reason for killing them since life imprisonment will keep
them off the streets as well, and one can't use deterence
either, since if it really is a sickness a penalty
probably won't help them. now of course the first
argument against this is that someone with a sickness
needs to be rehabilitated. now here's my problem with the
rehabilitation theory, it considers the act negligible to
the fact that the individual that perpetrated it is a
victim. and this is where i think we'd be wrong to not
put the person to death.
i read a philosophers opinion that we have a moral right
to be angry, and i fully agree. only i think we have a
moral obligation to be angry with this person. he made a
decision to do what he did (i don't believe that the
sickness in itself is an excuse, since i don't think that
it is a direct cause of the action), between the sickness
and the action there is this thing called a choice, and
the individual makes it. just as we applaud people for
their heroics we shoudl detest them for their
abominations. now the main problem smelly hippies have
with this release of anger is a fear of primitive barbaric
retaliation (which is ironic considering their advocation
of communism). but this is where i believe the
institutionalizion of death (capital punishment) is what
keeps us from this boundary. although with most people
(ahem Juliann) this is their biggest beef with the penalty
i think it is the perfect mediation between our moral
obligation of anger and a civilized society. think of
what you say when you refuse to get angry enough to insist
on the ultimate penalty. "we have no right". first of
all who is we? is that you? is that me? is that the
little girl? is that the parents? the government? now
think of why you say that. it is purely selfishly
motivated to say that. your phony compassion for the
assailiant that you now paint as the victim is just a
selfish barrier to protect your own freedom. what you are
really sayiing is that you are worried so much about your
freedom to live and that you don't want an institution to
have the power to take it from you.
i believe that in certain circumstances, we have a moral
obligation to be angry and this anger results in the
insistance oft the ultimate punishment. by putting a
person like i mentioned above to death, we bring back a
moral balance to our society and lives, saying that we
won't tolerate the rape of a 7 year old girl in our
society, and that whoever does it will forfeit what they
hold most dear. and trust me, if people have the choice
they'll pick life over death.
by taking this preference from them we show our
intolerance for such atrocious acts.