[quote name='"UU_ood"'] I didn't ask what you think they deserve. Two completely different things. I asked if you agreed with caning and other similar tortuous practices.[/quote] Why exactly does that matter? Is this thread not about the death penalty and not what type of torture you (may or may not)think is fit?
Because it relates to your previous question "Should the child rapist live". It's not a matter of "should" or "deserve". Just because you believe violent criminals deserve be canned or tortured in other ways, doesn't mean it's okay to support the practice. Same for death penalty. *Not saying you support caning
Well, I do support the death penalty. I guess that makes me a bad person. But I also don't think there should be a "rush" on things.
The last part of this sentence is a premise you've entirely made up yourself. I don't have a problem at all with killing a hardcore criminal who is likely to do it again. My problem is when we get the innocent ones. It has happened and been proven later in time. There are almost no 'iron-clad' cases where more than one person (whom had no social connection) witnessed the actual crime taking place (criminals are secretive, who knew?). Even in this circumstance, people can collectively get recollections wrong for a number of reasons. Please avoid making completely general assumptions as you just did. To assume every prisoner is truly guilty is in the same line as people assuming all marijuana smokers are idiots with no motivation. If we accepted your view then we'd have a justice system that never strives to wrong its own mistakes. Don't even get me started on abortion, because I think dismantling half of your argument will suffice for that part.
Far too simplistic an argument ^ I wouldn't steal from a small infant. But I might feel justified in stealing from an oil tycoon who steals from other people. Both are acts of theft and have many ethical dilemmas. To sum up the entire debate in five words is nonsensical.