I think you just contradicted yourself. Yes, hopefully I have insurance for that, but I might not, in which case I am left homeless through no fault of my own, but society does not owe me a new house just because of my mishap. Hopefully all abused children can be taken care of by society, but some are not as fortunate. These things are not guaranteed. The universe does not owe us a rescue from gratuitous misfortunes.
But yeah, prison is likely overused, so that I agree with. It is a way to enslave black people, many of whom did very little wrong, but I’m specifically talking about the death penalty here, not prison.
I agree with banishment. But imprisonment isn’t free. Of course, if it turns out the death penalty is even more expensive then that is beyond my mental grasp.
I’m simply arguing philosophically here.
Are you going to get the death penalty for losing your house?
No, because losing my house does not make me a danger to the rest of society.
1 Like
Then it is a stupid analogy.
In a perfect world, yeah you should get a new house if the old one was destroyed through a criminal act.
The death penalty is more extreme than losing a house
I get it, you believe that society has no responsibility to protect children.
Not quite. We do our best to protect children, but we cannot guarantee that all of them will be saved in time.
In this case, if she is permanently hurt beyond rehabilitation, it’s not a matter of finding “justice” for her, since punishing her abusers will not make her sane again. This is simply a situation of how society should deal with a person who cannot live in society.
Nobody did their best to protect her. It was extreme how incompetent people were at protecting her. What you do with the horror she turned into as a result of the extreme incompetence of society to protect her, is life in prison to keep her away from harming anyone else, not death.
I never said anything about finding justice for her. I said they needed to remove her from that home when she was a child. Her half sister got removed when she was 8, and she turned out okay. Lisa was left there to break her brian, while her sister was saved.
I’m not sure this logic holds:
Some personnel from some agency failed to protect her as a child => some other agency needs to provide her with a lifetime of isolated care
I mean, it’s certainly nice if such agency can accommodate that. But it’s certainly not an obligation.
You’re also still talking about a nonexistant scenario since it does cost more to put a person to death than to keep them in prison for life.
Yes. I know you said this. That didn’t happen though.
Yes it was an obligation to her as a child that failed horribly. So why should that obligation now cease?
Yes because of massive failures.
Welp, if that’s the case then sure, perhaps we should’ve kept her alive. Seems to me like that’s the result of bureaucracy though, and not the actual cost of putting her to sleep vs lifelong care.
I think it is the cost if all the appeals in court, but not sure
The sole reason for putting her to death was revenge, not to save money or protect society, revenge
No, it wasn’t even an obligation when she was a child. I said it’d be nice if we can take care of all abused children.
Disagree. It was an obligation. You voted for trump, didnt you?