Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
actually, i think you make a good point as well
i think roxy is approaching this more from a perspective of justice rather than research. but both approaches have their merits and downsides.
edit - overall though i'd say the logical thing to do with a psychopath who committed a murder or whatever is have them do a thorough study of him and all that, and when the work on him is done then kill him.
also it sounds barbaric but i've always thought a simple way to execute people is just shoot them in the head. i don't see how that's any less humane than an injection or whatever and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
|
I'm certainly not opposed to killing them, as someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is just so aberrant that their continued existence is of no non-scientific benefit to anyone, while also being extremely dangerous to society in general. But I also don't know that you could ever know when you'd learned everything you could learn from him.
There's just so much to be learned, and so much that may or may not be possible to accomplish by further study (e.g. better diagnosis, actual rehabilitation, developing more effective crime fighting techniques to capture serial killers, learning what red flags to look for in children at risk of developing into psychopaths and how to treat them, etc) that to simply decide that you've learned everything that there is to learn about an individual would be premature.
I'm not opposed to executing the most dangerous serial killers, but the theoretical benefits to their study are such that I am in effect arguing against the death penalty for them.