Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yahwe
I believe the point there was that the US government was responsible but that that was to be considered a BAD THING for a government to do.
Governments and the state shouldn't be killing their own citizens. It's to be considered a BAD THING when they do and it is not an acceptable counter argument to say "but they've done it before" or "even their incompetence can lead to them killing citizens".
|
The points being made, within the framework of the language used in the constitutional amendment, were:
1. The sarcastic point that it really isn't "unusual" for a government to cause the deaths of its citizens. The point was not to argue that it was a "good" thing.
2. The ironic point that killing itself isn't considerd "cruel" under our law only the manner of the killing is in question as being cruel.
One must remember that I DO NOT support the death penalty. However, I am angered more by those who are on my side but who don't attack the problem head on with some semblance of reason than I am by those who take the other side but state their argument effectively. These arguments by the opponents of the death penalty that the METHOD of killing the convict is too cruel to be allowed, rather than just sticking to the point that state executions are pointless and wrong, do more to promote pro-death penalty sentiment than virtually anything else currently going on.