[Thought Prompt] The Death Penalty

[Dad]

First established as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C., the Death Penalty was an established law by King Hammaurabi of Babylon.  In the seventeenth century B.C., it became Draconian Code in Athens that the death penalty was the punishment for breaking any and all laws. In the tenth century A.D., under the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 are rumored to have been executed.  And with Britain's influence, America would later be heavily coerced to use the death penalty as well.  As Europeans settled into the new world, they would bring with them the practice of capital punishment.

 

• 1608:  Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia  Executed for being a spy for Spain.
• 1612:  Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacts "Divine, Moral, and Martial Laws" (the first SJW boiz), providing the death penalty for minor offenses, such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.
• 1630:  Massachusetts Bay Colony holds its first execution.
• 1665:  New York Colony creates the Duke's Laws of 1665.  Denying God or striking your mother or father was punishable by death.
• 1767:  One hundred years later, Cesare Beccaria's essay On Crimes and Punishment weighs on the world.  He theorizes that there is no justification for the state to take someone's life.  
• 1794:  Pennsylvania repeals the death penalty for all offenses except first degree murder.
• 1834:  Pennsylvania is the first state to move executions out of public viewing and to carry them out in correctional facilities.
• 1864:  Michigan becomes the first state to eliminate the death penalty for all crimes except treason.  Rhode Island and Wisconsin would soon take that step a bit further, and abolish the death penalty for all crimes.

 

From 1907 to 1917, at least six states outlawed the death penalty and three limited the penalty to crimes of treason and first degree murder of peace keepers.  Unfortunately, the U.S. was about to enter World War I and Russia was in the middle of a revolution, creating a tense and threatening atmosphere.  This caused five of the six abolitionist states to bring the death penalty back by 1920.

 

From the 20's to the 40's, the resurgence of the use of the death penalty was quite high.  Partly due to the writing of criminologists who stated, "the death penalty is a necessary social measure".  There were more executions in the 1930s than in any other decade in American history.  Over the course of the 50s and 60s, support of the death penalty fell to an all time low.  Executions lowered from nearly 1300 a year to only 191, with only 42% supporting the death penalty.

 

The 60's challenged the death penalty the most.  Such cases as U.S. v Jackson caused the courts to rule the practice of execution by jury decision to be unconstitutional, as it forced defendants to waive their rights to jury trial to ensure they would not get a death sentence.

 

 In 1972, the arbitrary behavior of the death penalty would again be brought before the Supreme Court.  In Furman v. Georgia, Jackson v. Georgia, and Branch v. Texas.  Furman argues that capital cases resulted in capricious sentencing.  Furman eventually won out with the Supreme Court setting the standard that a punishment would be "cruel and unusual" if it was too severe for the crime.  The Court held that the punishment under the statute was cruel, and violated the Eighth Amendment.  Thus, June 29, 1972 marked the day the Supreme Court effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes, and commuting the sentences of more than 600 death row inmates around the country.

 

Additional reading can be found here:  http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty#intro

 

How does YCM feel about the Death Penalty?  We've clearly seen a large decrease in its use over the last decade or so, but such extremes have still been taken.  What warrants the death penalty?  When is the death penalty taking it too far?  Why do you feel one crime outweighs another?

[a bad post]

I'm against the death penalty because I think it's extremely arrogant of people to judge who they think is fit to live or die. Also there have been far to many cases where the wrong man was executed and I am in far more favor of life without parole considering if there is a miscarriage of justice that wrong can be righted.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm against consciously taking anything I cannot return

 

As in I don't like to take something away, knowing I likely won't be able to give it back.

 

Anyway, what's most damning against the DP isn't even anything touchy feely like that. It's been proven that the DP doesn't serve as a deterrent and it costs a sheet ton more than life in prison

 

So...we're basically doing it to get a taste of vengeance and power. Neither of which are good reasons

[mitchermitcher]

I'm against DP regardless of crime as well. Even if someone's stuck in prison for life, that's an entire lifetime to ponder and think and they deserve at least that. No matter what you do, you deserve to live.

 

I can't win the argument that it's a waste of taxpayers' money to keep prisoners alive though. Even then I stand against the death penalty.

[Dad]

I'm against DP regardless of crime as well. Even if someone's stuck in prison for life, that's an entire lifetime to ponder and think and they deserve at least that. No matter what you do, you deserve to live.

 

I can't win the argument that it's a waste of taxpayers' money to keep prisoners alive though. Even then I stand against the death penalty.

 

I disagree.  Some people don't regret their actions.  Some people--who enjoy killing their victims, and celebrate their suffering--will never think about what they've done.  Rather they'll build a legacy in some jail house as the "x" murderer or be given some title for their crimes.  I think some people deserve the death penalty.

[Goose]

I'll comment later but please update the OP so that it doesn't confuse BC and AD years.  It's a garbled mess right now.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Hawai'i abolished its death penalty sometime in the 1940s (during territorial days), so yeah we haven't killed anyone during our time as a state. There was, however, a capital punishment trial involving a [former] service member in the federal system, which does have death as a punishment. He didn't die though, but just getting life in prison.

 

But anyway, I'm pretty much against the death penalty for a couple reasons.

 

1. Mistakes CAN happen and if after evidence is discovered that would prove the person innocent, it is too late to apologize; you already killed the person. With life in prison, you can at least apologize and compensate them, provided they haven't already died due to other factors. 

 

(This is why you get ALL of the evidence in play when sentencing someone; make sure you actually get the guys who did the crime and not someone who wasn't even involved.)

 

2. It's not an effective deterrent for stopping crimes, especially if the criminal in mind WANTS to die. Let's bring up ISIS/Daesh; if they can blow up an entire airport and kill/injure hundreds of people, they don't care if it costs them their lives. If we kill them, then they get hailed as martyrs for their cause (and whoever's stuck in the Middle East gets killed as retaliation). 

 

But if we keep them alive, then we do have to feed/house them and that's certainly not going to go well with people.

 

------

Answering the following two questions; I'll abstain from the last one. 

 

A. I'm against the death penalty, but if it needed to be applied, only do it if the crime in itself is extreme heinous by nature and the person responsible for instigating it has no remorse for what they have done. Now, as I mentioned in (2), some guys don't care if they're going to die for killing hundreds of people, so this isn't a perfect plan. 

 

In other words, only apply this if the crime itself and the mentality of the person itself leaves no appropriate option besides it. Some people do deserve to be taken out of the world if that's the case. 

 

B. If we're killing people out of vengeance or for personal satisfaction, then applying the penalty is going too far. If the person in question shows repentance, but you choose to kill them otherwise, then it's pushing boundaries. Depending on what happened, the person feeling sorry may not be enough to save them from death.

[a bad post]

I disagree.  Some people don't regret their actions.  Some people--who enjoy killing their victims, and celebrate their suffering--will never think about what they've done.  Rather they'll build a legacy in some jail house as the "x" murderer or be given some title for their crimes.  I think some people deserve the death penalty.

See the problem I see with this is then you make "martyrs" of these people. There's a reason that famous murderers/pedophiles/rapists have "fan clubs" and admirers. It's because of the big attention given to their cases and execution. I mean really the best thing to do in most of those cases is to allow those sickos to rot away for the rest of their lives in a jail cell away from the public eye. 

[Dad]

I'll comment later but please update the OP so that it doesn't confuse BC and AD years.  It's a garbled mess right now.

 

OP fixed.  Sorry about that.

 

 

A. I'm against the death penalty, but if it needed to be applied, only do it if the crime in itself is extreme heinous by nature and the person responsible for instigating it has no remorse for what they have done. Now, as I mentioned in (2), some guys don't care if they're going to die for killing hundreds of people, so this isn't a perfect plan. 

 

In other words, only apply this if the crime itself and the mentality of the person itself leaves no appropriate option besides it. Some people do deserve to be taken out of the world if that's the case. 

 

So, using cruel and unusual punishment to punish cruel and unusual punishment.  I'd be okay with this if it wasn't cruel and unusual.  But I'm contradicting myself so I actually do support it.

 

 

See the problem I see with this is then you make "martyrs" of these people. There's a reason that famous murderers/pedophiles/rapists have "fan clubs" and admirers. It's because of the big attention given to their cases and execution. I mean really the best thing to do in most of those cases is to allow those sickos to rot away for the rest of their lives in a jail cell away from the public eye. 

 

Cept them rotting doesn't make them any less famous.  Specially not with today's social media.  They will blow up.  As infamous men/women in prison, or infamous dead men and women.  The only difference is, with one option we hard working citizens aren't paying for their shitty way of life.

[Sluggaholic]

I'm down for the Death Penalty, but only in cases where I feel it's justified. Things like Rape, Murder, etc. You know the run. I know it's wrong to take from someone something as precious as life, but anyone who commits acts like the above honestly don't deserve the precious thing they have. At that point, my philosophy of "all life being precious, as all people have the ability to change and become better" goes out the window. When you murder or rape, you throw away your humanity for something darker, in my opinion. As such, you don't deserve to be treated like the rest of the world. Like a rabid dog, you should be put down.

 

That's my two cents, of course. I'm sure there's flaws in it, but nothing's perfect.

 

And I think lethal injection's bullshit. Bullet in the brain's how I'd want it to go down.

[ihop]

I'm against the death penalty because I think it's extremely arrogant of people to judge who they think is fit to live or die. Also there have been far to many cases where the wrong man was executed and I am in far more favor of life without parole considering if there is a miscarriage of justice that wrong can be righted.

 

 

See the problem I see with this is then you make "martyrs" of these people. There's a reason that famous murderers/pedophiles/rapists have "fan clubs" and admirers. It's because of the big attention given to their cases and execution. I mean really the best thing to do in most of those cases is to allow those sickos to rot away for the rest of their lives in a jail cell away from the public eye. 

 

These two points pretty much sum up exactly what I think. There's a lot of power in someone dying for their beliefs and if their beliefs happen to be sick and twisted it's going to lead to a lot more trouble than someone who's tried (ideally don't make a big deal of the trial as well) and then thrown away in some cell for the rest of their life. Someone like Anders Breivik who is truly one of the most evil men in the world would probably have made much more of an impact if he'd been executed than now when he's been flung into psychiatric care. 

 

The moral aspect, which Elly touched on, is also very important to me. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I want to mention how fascinated I am with this card, mostly from a precedence standpoint. I mean, it breaks some flavor traits, the obvious one being a DARK Tellaknight when all of them have been LIGHT so far, then its unique Attribute-swapping effect to doesn't seem to be related to neither Tellarknights nor Shaddolls, also it's Construct, who was presumed dead, fused with Tellarknights. In a way, I consider the existence of this card gives card makers "green light" to come up with non-canonical card ideas that combine other DT archetypes and/or break their flavorful traits. For instance, personally I had thought in making a DARK Constellar Rank2 after Zefranaga, and now I got this card to support these kind of concepts, in a "the DT did X, so this card can potentially be a thing, too" perspective.

Thinking about it... it's not the first time the DT does something like this (e.g. Roach turning into Exciton and becoming LIGHT despite being an Evilswarm?), but it's nice to have another card as example.

I'm down for the Death Penalty, but only in cases where I feel it's justified. Things like Rape, Murder, etc. You know the run. I know it's wrong to take from someone something as precious as life, but anyone who commits acts like the above honestly don't deserve the precious thing they have. At that point, my philosophy of "all life being precious, as all people have the ability to change and become better" goes out the window. When you murder or rape, you throw away your humanity for something darker, in my opinion. As such, you don't deserve to be treated like the rest of the world. Like a rabid dog, you should be put down.

 

That's my two cents, of course. I'm sure there's flaws in it, but nothing's perfect.

 

And I think lethal injection's bullshit. Bullet in the brain's how I'd want it to go down.

Lol, you do realize how easy it to accuse and convict somone of rape

 

A 100 guilty man should go free before 1 innocent man has to staunch the bloodlust of people like you

 

I might not have any lost love for senator sanders, but in this class I am truely grateful he shifted the platform left and is working against our barbaric tradition of state sanctioned murder

[Sluggaholic]

A 100 guilty man should go free before 1 innocent man has to staunch the bloodlust of people like you

 

No, 100 guilty men should not go free before 1 innocent man is lost to a system that is indeed flawed, but is (as unfortunate as it may be) necessary. Again, in my eyes. I'll stand by my belief that men and women who commit crimes as lowly and sickening as rape and murder should, in turn, feel the cold, dark embrace of death and nothingness. It's cruel, it's dark, and I'm aware of that. Even so, those who act as less than human don't deserve to be treated as human. I have no bloodlust, as a matter of fact, as ironic as it is, the deaths of any man, woman, or child sicken me. But in the end, killing these beings is the same as taking out the trash. It's disgusting and oftentimes unsanitary, but necessary.

 

The lost life of an innocent man or woman would, indeed, be horrible, but all systems are flawed. 100 convicted murderers dying is, in my mind, worth the chance of losing one innocent life. And who knows. Perhaps if the whole world enacted the death penalty, there would be less falsely-convicted rapists, as people wouldn't want the death of another weighing on their mind. Perhaps.

[vla1ne]

I'm for the death penalty, in cases where there is absolutely 0 possible doubt that the person in question has committed a crime worthy of it. for example, if a person who has already been to jail multiple times, is clearly on camera torturing and/or killing people, and there are not only witnesses, but video and DNA evidence placing them at the scene as the criminal, then the death penalty would be appropriate. for example, a few years back, there was a video of two or three cops, beating a homeless man to death, for no reason, at all. the entire thing was on camera, all of the context, all of the actions, they were all on camera. i myself believe that those cops deserved to die. because not only was there enough evidence to convict them, they obvious malice in their voices and actions gave a clear impression of how they though their power was meant to be used. that kind of mentality, imo, deserves little, if any mercy.

 

on the flip side of that, i do not support the death penalty for multiple reasons

 

1. too much money, if we're going to implement it, then it needs to be cheap, efficient, and a clear deterrent. the current death penalty fails on all three counts.

 

2. too much ambiguity, if it is to exist, in any form, then it needs to be the final statement, reserved only for those who are not only proven beyond a doubt guilty, but whose crimes deserve nothing less than death. it's a simple fact that some people just need to die, but if that comes at the expense of innocents falling through, then i can do without it. and as it stands, the amount of innocent people who fall through is above 0, so i can do without it.

 

3. reformation. imo, prison, before all else, needs to be a place for rehabilitation. guilty or framed, not everybody in prison is a bad guy, many if not all, deserve to be helped back up. and the death penalty does not allow for that. some people might be beyond hope, by killing them before even trying to bring them back to proper society defeats what i believe, should be jail/prison's number one goal.

[Aix]

Lol, you do realize how easy it to accuse and convict somone of rape

A 100 guilty man should go free before 1 innocent man has to staunch the bloodlust of people like you

I might not have any lost love for senator sanders, but in this class I am truely grateful he shifted the platform left and is working against our barbaric tradition of state sanctioned murder

Thought you were utilitarian.

No, 100 guilty men should not go free before 1 innocent man is lost to a system that is indeed flawed, but is (as unfortunate as it may be) necessary. Again, in my eyes. I'll stand by my belief that men and women who commit crimes as lowly and sickening as rape and murder should, in turn, feel the cold, dark embrace of death and nothingness. It's cruel, it's dark, and I'm aware of that. Even so, those who act as less than human don't deserve to be treated as human. I have no bloodlust, as a matter of fact, as ironic as it is, the deaths of any man, woman, or child sicken me. But in the end, killing these beings is the same as taking out the trash. It's disgusting and oftentimes unsanitary, but necessary.

 

The lost life of an innocent man or woman would, indeed, be horrible, but all systems are flawed. 100 convicted murderers dying is, in my mind, worth the chance of losing one innocent life. And who knows. Perhaps if the whole world enacted the death penalty, there would be less falsely-convicted rapists, as people wouldn't want the death of another weighing on their mind. Perhaps.

You have a disgustingly ignorant, black and white view of the human psyche and morality.

I'm for the death penalty, in cases where there is absolutely 0 possible doubt that the person in question has committed a crime worthy of it. for example, if a person who has already been to jail multiple times, is clearly on camera torturing and/or killing people, and there are not only witnesses, but video and DNA evidence placing them at the scene as the criminal, then the death penalty would be appropriate. for example, a few years back, there was a video of two or three cops, beating a homeless man to death, for no reason, at all. the entire thing was on camera, all of the context, all of the actions, they were all on camera. i myself believe that those cops deserved to die. because not only was there enough evidence to convict them, they obvious malice in their voices and actions gave a clear impression of how they though their power was meant to be used. that kind of mentality, imo, deserves little, if any mercy.

 

on the flip side of that, i do not support the death penalty for multiple reasons

 

1. too much money, if we're going to implement it, then it needs to be cheap, efficient, and a clear deterrent. the current death penalty fails on all three counts.

 

2. too much ambiguity, if it is to exist, in any form, then it needs to be the final statement, reserved only for those who are not only proven beyond a doubt guilty, but whose crimes deserve nothing less than death. it's a simple fact that some people just need to die, but if that comes at the expense of innocents falling through, then i can do without it. and as it stands, the amount of innocent people who fall through is above 0, so i can do without it.

 

3. reformation. imo, prison, before all else, needs to be a place for rehabilitation. guilty or framed, not everybody in prison is a bad guy, many if not all, deserve to be helped back up. and the death penalty does not allow for that. some people might be beyond hope, by killing them before even trying to bring them back to proper society defeats what i believe, should be jail/prison's number one goal.

Why is the death penalty so expensive, anyway?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Thought you were utilitarian. You have a disgustingly ignorant, black and white view of the human psyche and morality.

My words were "Utilitarianism is the most objective measure of ethics"

 

Humans cannot be entirely objective, likewise I cannot be a true utilitarian. I'm but a failed mockery of a greater system

 

That aside, I've yet to see proof that the DP helps more than it harms. So utilitarianism isn't even valid here

[Brinolovania]

Another thing to note is that, especially from an American perspective, it's very important that the government restricts freedom as little as possible. Obviously we need laws, and laws inherently reduce freedom, but the point generally stands. Taking someone's life removes their freedom to do literally anything. Add that to the possibility of false conviction and the lack of preventive power, and the death penalty doesn't seem like a very good thing.

[vla1ne]

You have a disgustingly ignorant, black and white view of the human psyche and morality.

have to say i agree to an extent with tori, some people do just need to die. the only reason i'm against it myself is because i cannot objectively tell, and i doubt anybody else can either, who exactly those people are. so i would rather let them free than condemn innocent men to the same fate.

 

Why is the death penalty so expensive, anyway?

because funeral costs, medicine costs, last rites, and all the bells and whistles associated with killing the convicted. also the legal paperwork, endless appeals, ect. really, two to the head and a small hole in the ground would be the most cost effective, but since we go the most humane route (expensive ass painless poisons and the like) we end up paying more to kill than we do to keep them alive.

[Aix]

have to say i agree to an extent with tori, some people do just need to die. the only reason i'm against it myself is because i cannot objectively tell, and i doubt anybody else can either, who exactly those people are. so i would rather let them free than condemn innocent men to the same fate.

If you think death should be a consequence for certain crimes sure, but to reason it as anyone who commits certain crimes has thrown away their humanity is pure ignorance. It is very difficult to judge whether someone is "beyond saving", to have a black and white view like that is stupidly oversimplifying it.

[Dad]

K.  Here's a thought.  If Hitler were tried for his crimes from an objective POV, would he deserve the death penalty?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, death is too quick and easy of a punishment for a man of that supposedly evil calliber

 

Also there's questions about how much was him v Himmler

[Aix]

K.  Here's a thought.  If Hitler were tried for his crimes from an objective POV, would he deserve the death penalty?

To apply justice like that in a single instance is merely revenge and satisfaction. Justice is a deterrent and a way of maintaining moral order, giving negative consequences to negative actions. It should be applied consistently. If where he is tried does not have a practice of giving the death sentence, then he should not be given it.

[Sluggaholic]

You have a disgustingly ignorant, black and white view of the human psyche and morality.

 

If you think death should be a consequence for certain crimes sure, but to reason it as anyone who commits certain crimes has thrown away their humanity is pure ignorance. It is very difficult to judge whether someone is "beyond saving", to have a black and white view like that is stupidly oversimplifying it.

 

So be it. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I do not care if you think I'm disgustingly ignorant, nor do I have any care for your opinion on human psyche and morality. What I believe is that should you commit crimes as grave and depraved as murder and rape, then you are no longer human. End of story. No argument to be made on your side. Mind you, this is only the truth after you've been proven guilty. Whilst under investigation, you are still human and deserve your human rights. Afterwards, however, you no longer are. Though, I do not feel I had to write all that-- I'm sure you didn't think so little of me to assume that I was against the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"-- since you are a smart fellow, or so I'm led to believe.

 

There are a lot of things in the world, I feel, that are much more complicated than they need to be. The Death Penalty should not be one of those things. It should be black and white-- night and day-- so that way we can end those miserable excuses for human life with no remorse or guilt. The death of another human should not weigh on another's mind. Therefore, if we take up the mindset that such beings are no longer human after committing such depraved crimes, then life not only becomes simpler, but easier as well. A weight is taken off of all of humanity's shoulders that, realistically, should not have been there in the first place.

 

But thank you for your input, Pikari, even if I think it's ludicrously soft and weak.

[Aix]

So be it. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I do not care if you think I'm disgustingly ignorant, nor do I have any care for your opinion on human psyche and morality. What I believe is that should you commit crimes as grave and depraved as murder and rape, then you are no longer human. End of story. No argument to be made on your side. Mind you, this is only the truth after you've been proven guilty. Whilst under investigation, you are still human and deserve your human rights. Afterwards, however, you no longer are. Though, I do not feel I had to write all that-- I'm sure you didn't think so little of me to assume that I was against the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"-- since you are a smart fellow, or so I'm led to believe.

 

There are a lot of things in the world, I feel, that are much more complicated than they need to be. The Death Penalty should not be one of those things. It should be black and white-- night and day-- so that way we can end those miserable excuses for human life with no remorse or guilt. The death of another human should not weigh on another's mind. Therefore, if we take up the mindset that such beings are no longer human after committing such depraved crimes, then life not only becomes simpler, but easier as well. A weight is taken off of all of humanity's shoulders that, realistically, should not have been there in the first place.

 

But thank you for your input, Pikari, even if I think it's ludicrously soft and weak.

Murder and rape doesn't turn one into a psychopath or other being that lacks the traits that one might consider human, that's not how it works. Provided they weren't a psychopath to begin with, many of these people do feel guilt and remorse. Many of these people could have been normal people, but they were driven into a psychological corner or otherwise been out of their normal state of mind. Simply put, they made a mistake, a huge one. What they've done disgusts us, but if we killed people because they morally disgust us, well—you see where we're going to have a problem?

 

I just wonder, do you really think it's moral to toss moral considerations for convenience? Does that not defeat morality to you?

[Sluggaholic]

Murder and rape doesn't turn one into a psychopath or other being that lacks the traits that one might consider human, that's not how it works. Provided they weren't a psychopath to begin with, many of these people do feel guilt and remorse. Many of these people could have been normal people, but they were driven into a psychological corner or otherwise been out of their normal state of mind. Simply put, they made a mistake, a huge one. What they've done disgusts us, but if we killed people because they morally disgust us, well—you see where we're going to have a problem?

 

I just wonder, do you really think it's moral to toss moral considerations for convenience? Does that not defeat morality to you?

 

You say they've just made a mistake. In a way, I agree. Much like the parent who must discipline and teach the child to live a life without fault, we-- Humans-- are responsible for teaching and disciplining these creatures. After all, mistakes must be punished. And psychopathy plays nothing in my belief. One could be perfectly sane and have killed someone in cold or warm blood and still be less than human. No matter the state of mind of the individual, you kill a human being, you relinquish your humanity. It is black and white. Night and day. No matter what. If one kills in self-defense, even, they've relinquished a piece of their humanity. While I do not believe those people should be killed outright, we should let their guilt kill them slowly. You can console those who've done such things as murder whilst in self-defense, but it won't stop the torment of constant pain attributed and brought on by guilt. As sad as it is, those people are their own worst enemies, and they are their own executers, in most cases.

 

But should you give in, should you let your body take over, and should you kill whilst not defending yourself, then you are no longer human. It is plain as that. There is nothing to be said for you any longer. Same goes for rape. You are no longer a human. You are something less. You are the rabid dog society must put down.

 

Think of that as you will. And as for your last question-- that's a worthless thought. After all, we don't see these things the same way. You see a human who could've made an honest, albeit horrifying mistake. I see nothing but a murderer or rapist. Something less than human. I don't toss my morality aside. My morality stays with me as we put those things to death. I suppose, in a way, it's all about perspective. No, it doesn't defeat the purpose of morality, Pikari.