OSNews

The fact I have to explain the difference to you between murder and imprisonment says enough. A prison sentence may not be reversible in case of court errors, but at least the person gets to live. If he gets murdered by the state, falsely, the damage cannot be undone.

In addition, state-sponsored murder punishes the perpetrator's family and friends much heavier than a prison sentence.

I'm opposed to capital punishment, as long as the state can keep the person incarcerated and prevent them from committing more crimes. For me, it's a moral quandry. I don't like the idea of state-sponsored killing; particularly when there's a reasonable (albeit expensive) alternative. But that's the price for living in a civilized society. One additional advantage is that, in the rare circumstance that an innocent man goes to prison, at least he can live.

What does it say exactly? If it's so blatantly obvious and already being discussed many times before, could you please copy/paste it for me or give me a link?



I dunno, sound kind of weak to me. I mean, you start off with "The Dutch constitution states in its first article that everyone is equal - the principle of unconditional equality.". It is such a strong statement, I can almost picture tens of thousands of demonstrators marching down the streets with "Unconditional Equality" written on their banners. And then, a few minutes later, your argument is reduced to something along the lines of "well, at least they get to eat soup". I mean, equality is equality, especially the UNCONDITIONAL one, so how come it's acceptable for the people to imprison people but not acceptable to execute them?

Again, your whole argument against death penalty is based on making it sound that if death penalty exists then I will be applied to everyone from serial killers to parking offenders, although I am repeatedly, in every post, stating that I think it should only apply to extreme cases where there is undisputed independent evidence of the accused being guilty of MULTIPLE deaths.



So, it's wrong to "punish" relatives of a mass murderer, but it's ok to take money from victims' relatives and use that money to cloth, feed and shelter that murderer? I mean, this money could be used for cancer research, or to feed hungry kids, or to provide care for elderly.