You're absolutely correct Mike, all should lose their lives, by all, I mean the driver of the car that was speeding, and the parents of the 4 year old that let him run loose in traffic.

Oh, and what about that traffic cop that could have put a bullet in one of the tires and stopped the car before it hit the child. Yeah, him too!!!

Oh, but what if he'd missed and hit and killed a bystander with the stray bullet..........

 

 

To answer your first comment, serotta's and your second, laws should be put into place and enforced or not made at all. In Massachusetts, if you are travelling at double the posted speed or greater, it's a criminal offense and arrestable. If the death penalty were in place, and I killed someone due to negligence while commiting a criminal activity, yes, your damned right I should be subject to that death penalty. But we also have a law that states if you have an unregistered hand gun while commiting any crime, you will have a one year sentence added to whatever you receive. Nobody has served this, it always get's plea=bargained out in the interest of focusing on the main crime. We also have a law that says all children under 12 must wear a helmet while riding a bike, there is no penalty for it! What's the point? As far as the cop that could have put a bullet in my tire and the parents, you're just being ridiculous. I didn't say you should TAKE your own life, but if you are going to commit a crime, you should be willing to pay the penalty. There is a big difference between a person with 18 DUI conictions 9yes I've seen that too many times) and someone speeding (albeit 45 in a 30 zone is way too fast).

 

Found guilty, sentenced, within a week a gone (preferably a bullet since it's cheapest). Carrying out the death penalty should not be expensive.




As for the death penalty being a deterant, novel idea but it's a thin line to tread. If we give out the death penalty more often for murders, and even second offense DUI as stated, it may deter some, but not enough put the 'deterant argument' high on list of things that support the death penalty. If it deters 1 or 20 or hundres of people thats great.

But it will not deter the majority. In order for the death penalty to be an effective deterant to the majory, well just look at Saddam's ruling over the years. We don't want to become him.




MikeF150 - interesting question. My girlfriend and her mom witnessed something like that years ago. A guy was driving through a neighborhood and a kid ran out between 2 cars and got hit, luckily he (child) survived. Guy was doing the speedlimit, if he was going slower it may not have happened, if he was going faster it may have killed the child or been ahead of him. The kids mother was extremely pissed at the guy, of course she was in the house not paying attention. There are more details, but it's irrelevent.

 

Agh, you posted that while I was still typing.

Last month we had a high school kid with a bright future get t-boned by a drunk driver, turns out that was guys 13th or 16th DUI.

 

Sorry about that chief!

Detterent or not, they should no longer be a burden on those of us carrying our own weight and behaving responsably. Whether they are a menace or a cost, they give up the right to be a burden. I do agree we would have to be very careful, but a 13th offense DUI, there's NO excuse, at all.

 

I didn't mean to cause such a "stink". Just my way to show each situation deserves it's own consequences. I purposely took everything to the extreme. "What if" games are fun to debate, but once you put each state law, and 12 people in a room with facts and prejudices, anything can happen and does.
I think we all sit on the same side of the fence on this one. To paraphrase Barretta, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."