Re: Guy Who Shot LARRY FLYNT Executed by LETHAL INJECTION
Date: November 21, 2013 02:36PM
Why fry more millionaires?
In deciding who gets the death penalty, or any other penalty for that matter, shouldn't a person's contribution to society be considered?
If you think no, why not?
After all, isn't a court-imposed penalty society's way of evening the balance?
For instance, say you've got two drug users, both caught for the same crime.
One has worked their entire life, maybe done some charity work, made enough money to have paid 100's of thousands, if not millions in taxes...they've had a good job, and generally speaking, a pretty good contributor to society.
On the other hand, you've got a life long ne'er do well...spotty employment history, probably have taken more than they've received, have relied on government hand outs and other sources of charity (many of which are funded by the fellow from above)...generally speaking, haven't really done much to push the ball forward for society...while many of their acts (or lack thereof) aren't really criminal, not only have they not really helped society, they've been for the most part, a drain on society.
For the same offense, should these people be treated the same?
If so, why?