Some random political rantings

Jan 17, 2006 19:10

For years, as I've argued against the death penalty, people have eventually been argued down to "it keeps these people from doing it again." This is a faulty premise to start with, since life imprisonment does the same thing, but the "takes away the threat of this criminal" thing seems to be the best argument they've got. So could someone please explain this one to me?

In other news, the Supreme Court upheld a law from Oregan (I believe) on doctor-assisted suicide. I don't really have strong feelings on the subject, since I personally don't like it but I know its advocates are doing what they think is best for people who are in pain. The problem I have is that the way the law was phrased, from how I heard, leaves a lot of room for corruption. I know any law leaves room to take advantage of the system, but just needing two doctors to agree seems a bit wrong. I'd assume that law is the same if a relative is the one to request it (for example, if the patient isn't conscious or in their right mind). What's to stop people from getting their inheretance a little quicker? I say if you're going to have a law like this, make a cosigner required for family requests, and any cosigners have their inheretance from the deceased withheld for, I don't know, 5 years or so. Then we'd at least be assured that a family member pressing for it is doing it for the right reasons.

opinions

Previous post Next post
Up