VMI77 wrote:Sort of a meaningless statistic without more details. "Somehow" involve alcohol? In the first place it's meaningless because, for instance, one beer doesn't turn anyone into a raving rapist, but in such circumstances, a rape would "involve" alcohol. Alcohol could be "involved" if the victim was attacked in a liquor store parking lot after buying a bottle of Vodka, even if neither perp or victim had drunk alcohol. Alcohol could be involved if the victim met the perp in a bar without either of them drinking. But I suspect that more often than not, the involvement of alcohol means that the rapist took advantage of a woman who had been drinking, rather than a rape occurring because the rapist was drinking.drjoker wrote:http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/05/doc ... t_way.htmlhe had stopped at McDonald's, bought a Coke and poured rum in it, according to Golden.
Alcohol is the devil's drink. I once had a police officer told me that 99% of all rape cases somehow involve alcohol. If there were no alcohol, she'd be out of a job. Just like how some cops get careless with a gun's muzzle at a gun shop, some pharmacists get careless with drugs and alcohol. This is the sad result. I think that if he gets treated for drug addiction, he would not be a threat to society any longer, so the death penalty would be too harsh. Killing the pharmacist won't bring the cop back to life. The death penalty is a waste of two lives, that of the victim and that of the killer. I think that the killer should work to pay restitution to the cop's family and return from work to jail (not home) and wear an electronic anklet. No parole. Ever. You take a life, you should pay for that with your life, but not with the death penalty.
I used to support the death penalty until I learned that 2% of death row inmates were found to be innocent when they invented DNA testing. That 2% is just probably the tip of the iceberg of innocents put to death.
Also, I find your moral evaluation rather appalling. Essentially you're saying the perp isn't fully responsible for his behavior because he was addicted to drugs. So, in your words, if someone "gets careless" with drugs and alcohol and then kills my son who, performing his duties as a LEO stops a perps vehicle for violating the law, the perp should get a second chance. So in your moral universe, my son, who makes the right choices and lives responsibly gets death, but the jerk who gets careless with drugs and alcohol gets to go on with his life after "treatment."
I also reject your notion that the death penalty has anything to do with any supposed future threat to society.....the death penalty is punishment, pure and simple. He killed without justification so his punishment is his own death. "Treatment" for people who choose to do bad things and then kill other people encourages more irresponsible behavior. A lack of personal responsibility and accountability is one of the factors destroying this country. I also reject your belief that "treatment" for drug and alcohol abuse is going to eliminate any future threat....whether from a statistical or psychological perspective. It is especially misplaced in this case, since the perp's flagrant and persistent violation of the law suggests a damaged moral compass.
100%
