Large-scale drug dealers to be murdered by US government?

[John Galt]

[Kane]

[exploited]

[John Galt]

the only point i'm currently arguing is that you're referring to a kangaroo as a hagfish. they are both chordates, sure, but they aren't the same thing at all. in fact, if you looked at a picture of both, i think even you would be able to tell the difference.

[John Galt]

[exploited]

[John Galt]

in regards to your edit, i would say i am opposed to death penalties as a matter of good policy for anything that did not result in murder. the reason for this is to discourage rapists and the like to let their victim live as opposed to figuring they're gonna get justice anyway served on them might as well get rid of witnesses. however, my major eception to this is high treason, which itself could lead to the deaths of many. but in terms of crimes that people commit against other people? murder would be the only one i support the death penalty for.

in terms of murder itself, i think it's a moral failure of government to not execute every murderer. executing murderers is the fundamental reason as to why the state exists. it was to make sure that vendettas didn't get carried out, but rather justice was served. any state that refuses to execute murderers is rejecting the very reason people submitted to government in the first place with the social contract. it is why people resort to vigilantism: the state is failing at its most basic moral obligation for existing

[exploited]

[Kane]

[John Galt]

i didn't say i like it. i said that all murderers should be executed. that some murderers who would escape justice otherwise would face the death penalty does appeal to me

the legitimacy of the state is called into question in any state that does not use the death penalty. how could it not be? it is so fundamental to everything. every american state can and does use the death penalty though