FfaerieOxide

Some people cannot be rehabilitated.

You can't know that. You only have evidence for people's inability to've been rehabilitated so far.

I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?

Not murder.

if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?

...drugs?

I’m not even going to dignify this response.

That's a response.

Have a nice day

Thank you. It'll indeed be much nicer without you advocating state murder in it. 🙂

Alright. I DON’T agree.

You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.

Well then. Murdering someone as ex-post "punishment" for past actions remains abhorrent, but holding a gun to her head until she gives the money back is cool and good.

There is a difference between threatening violence as a deterrent against currently engaged in harms a person has the ability to cease and claiming moral authority to end a person's life due to things they have no control over.

There's distinction between "Put down the box or we'll shoot you." and "Having touched the box in the past, you now need to die regardless."

Still don't fuck with "The death penalty" as a framework for the threat, however.

Allow me some cognitive dissonance

Not if you use it to advocate state murder I won't.

killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.

Innocent people will always have the ability to die, no matter how many people your state murders.

Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child.

Don't tell me what being abused as a child does to someone, thanks.

Does killing the person who did it make the assault not have happened?

Take the money, sure. Then they're no longer billionaires and there's no need to kill them.

The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.

Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.

The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.

You speak of "sociopathic behavior" while advocating state murder. 🤨

I gain more confidence that the world is now a better place.

Oh word? Did the horrific thing they did no longer happen?

While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.

Then you don't agree.

I wasn't aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.

No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.

I really expected better from Vietnam, whose "quarantine at gunpoint" public health policies I heartily endorse.

The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you've stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.

Leonard Nimoy and the animal actor who portrayed the Alfa 177 canine (in all likelyhood) are both dead.

I would prefer a world where a cute happy dog and Leonard Nimoy were still with us and William Shatner had died, twice.