Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah
Yet, there are tons of stuidies done showing there is no real difference between theirbrains and ours.
|
Not true. For example, most experts agree that damage to the brain's frontal lobe is one of the leading similarities that the majority of murderers and serial killers have. There are other things that have been identified as pre-disposers to a life of violence as well, and not all of them have to do with someone's brain/neurochemical receptors; exposure to violence at a young age, particularly of the sexual variety, often influences people towards living in social isolation, as well as having violent tendencies. But there are so many parts of the brain that, when damaged, can cause someone to act erratically, and it's very important for experts to study the minds of killers so that they can identify just what led them to such behavior (whether because of nature, nurture, or both).
Sources:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-serial-killer,
Predestined Serial Killers | Serendip Studio,
Criminal Profiling: The Psychology of a Serial Killer,
Inside the Mind of a Killer - ABC News
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah
Oh I am well aware of the cost of execution. We do a lot of crazier **** than that, that costs way more everyday.
It doesn't make me advocate a life sentence. .Im sorry, it just doesn't. Its the job of the governing state to keep the rest of its inhabitants safe, And like I said before, well kill a rabid dog and not think twice about it.But a person,that can do more damage then an entire pack of rabid animals well lock them up and throw away the key.
It costs buocoupe money to house them till they die of natural or unnaturally die.So I fail to see not executing some one over a budget clause.
Edit: Also I don't need to read through and decide what I believe dahling, because I have said it 57 times. I am pro death in the event of horrific cases involving, children, rapes, and gruesome violent deaths.
|
And yet, as I showed in my sources, it has been almost unanimously proven to cost millions more to execute them than to imprison them for life. And those millions come directly from the taxes that you pay. It's a waste of time and money, and there are only two defenses that it's proponents have: "But some people just deserve to die!" and "Imprisoning someone for life is cruel and madness-inducing! Show them mercy!" The first is pretty pointless, as life without parole is more than sufficient to keep the so-called "unforgivable monsters" off the street. And the second is foolish because it puts words into the prisoners mouths; who are you to decide what they would prefer? Why not just let those who are convicted to life without parole have the option to an execution, rather than forcing them to live or die according to
your morals?