TheMongoose

For certain crimes I’d be OK with it provided you can prove with 100% certainty that they are guilty. Not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or any other legal terminology. If there is any chance at all that they might be innocent, you cannot execute them.

But they’d have to be people who are dangerous to the rest of society, completely unrepentant and ideally having been through the rehabilitation process unsuccessfully before. You know the type. Those that don’t want to change. Those that even in prison are a danger to others.

Off the top of my head I can’t think of anyone over the last decade who’d meet that criteria, and in general terms I think I judge a society without the death penalty as more civilised than one that does condone the state killing it’s own citizens.

So while in theory I’d be OK with it, it’s safer for it not to be a tool available. When you have a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail etc.

Plus the general public are absolutely not to be trusted with it, and I can’t imagine the sort of pressure that might be put on judges in high profile cases. Better for it not to be an option.

Andrew Fucking Wakefield can never suffer enough for everything he’s responsible for

Shenanigans.

Yes. The answer to this isn’t to restrict what the NSA can do, the answer is to stop people’s privacy being a legally tradable commodity.

Isn’t that because at the root of greed is the inability to be satisfied? Why don’t billionaires, when they have literally money beyond avarice, more than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, just say “nope, I don’t need any more, everything else I earn can go to charity”?

But they don’t. They get richer. And despite the public image of them, they’ll still try and screw the regular workers out of as many toilet breaks as they can get away with in order to maximise how much they earn.

It’s almost beyond evil.