krahman dude, the death penalty is a law that applies only to human beings and not to eating veg, killing bugs or eating meat... Yes it could be classed as an accomplice
As Zap said, he could kill to stay alive and eating is self preservation so not the same as premeditated murder.
True. But he also said killing is killing and that killing makes you a killer. So to put it that way is just like saying if you kill anything alive, then you're a killer. My point being that self preservation is the reason why there's CP. You yourself being so wise must understand that the people who are trying the murderers are now highly afraid of them. So it is not wrong to add that destroying the murderer has now become a form of self preservation. Now what if that murderer ever escaped from prison? Who's to say that anyone of us is barred from ever becoming his next target?
So to keep that from happening, and for the preservation of the rest of human life, CP is just like stopping any future random acts by these murderers. To all of the sudden say that the courts have premeditated to kill the killer, takes away from their right to destroy any chance or threat of a proven murderer to kill someone innocent once again.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not here to put anyones intelligence or point of view down. They can go on believing whatever they want. But I know given the right circumstances, they would most definitely see things in a different light.
__________________ K. Rahmaan
~ Vision is all you'll need ~
On my own opinion its NAy. Who gave us the authority to takes one's life? Okay. He did evil yes, but can't we not give him a chance? Maybe he did evil because he never been love, and didn't know the meaning of love. Before we judge the person we have to check first where he came from and the roots why he became evil. We can put him to jail for the rest of his life to pay his evil deeds and I believe staying in a jail for the rest of his/her life is like dying itself but the only difference is that he/she is breathing.
On my own opinion its NAy. Who gave us the authority to takes one's life? Okay. He did evil yes, but can't we not give him a chance? Maybe he did evil because he never been love, and didn't know the meaning of love. Before we judge the person we have to check first where he came from and the roots why he became evil. We can put him to jail for the rest of his life to pay his evil deeds and I believe staying in a jail for the rest of his/her life is like dying itself but the only difference is that he/she is breathing.
Let me ask a cliche' question here. You want to give the one who committed murder or multiple murders another chance, did that person give his victims another chance? In the instance of Timothy McVeigh, did he give all the men, women, and children that are now dead another chance, did he give the loved ones of all those victims another chance?
In the instance of someone like "The Son of Sam" did he give all his victims a second chance, the victims of any number of other serial killers get a second chance? They have life in prison such as in the case of the one who orchestrated Helter Skelter, what chance of rehabilitation do you think is involved there?
Why are people so ready to protect the perpetrator and so few are willing to protect the victim and their families? It just blows my mind. "Oh they killed the 4 year old little girl after vaginally and anally raping her but give him 30+ years in jail and I'm sure he'll know he did wrong, he probably was abused by his father when he was a child" How could you possibly entertain such ideology???
Question, if you are aware that a murder is going to take place. Or you see a murder in progress and do nothing to prevent it or get the person being murdered help. Are you not in fact then an accomplice to murder?
On this premise, if you have someone who has committed murder and you know this person has no remorse and even at their own admission will do it again because they don't care, or because they enjoy it, and before you mention it, that in itself would qualify someone as being mentally unstable, makes no difference. And you allow them the opportunity to live so they have the ability to do it again in the future are you then not an accomplice to that future murder?
Absolutely, and if someone like McVeigh was to live in prison, it must be even harder for the victim's families to know that the person who killed their loved ones is still alive.
I voted YAY! and to a certain extent look toward a day when those criminals that perform heinous acts get caught and have reciprocal treatment done to them as a form of punishment.
I support it, in cases where there is no doubt. For example McVeigh, Harold Shipman, Chikatilo. I'm stressing the no doubt section. Not 'beyond reasonable doubt', but 'no doubt'.
It gives the Govt too much poer to abuse.
I've seen a LOT of people completely and totally railroaded by the justice system. Stauff that gives me chills.
It gives the Govt too much poer to abuse.
I've seen a LOT of people completely and totally railroaded by the justice system. Stauff that gives me chills.
When you think of the Death Penalty, do you see it as an unrestricted sentence that is handed out at the will of the Prosecutor and a Judge?
Murder has nothing to do with morality. Even if murder was morally correct, we would still have an obligation to oppose it under the terms of the social contract.
The social contract doesn't give a rat's ass about morality.
The true and legitimate function of the government is to uphold the rights of individuals. Rights of individuals, not morality. Repeat that a hundred times.
So we should be keeping them alive, right?
I'm still amazed that people seem to think that death is a worse fate than being locked away for the rest of your life, with little to no outside contact, in a minute cell.
Death's not a punishment. It's an end to the possibility of being punished.
__________________ Affiliation Cash
Makes you money. Makes me money.
The Death Penalty is not an imposition of morality on a criminal. And if you stop and think about it, ultimately it is not meant as a punishment. It is meant as a prevention of repeated opportunities of the act.
The Death Penalty is not an imposition of morality on a criminal. And if you stop and think about it, ultimately it is not meant as a punishment. It is meant as a prevention of repeated opportunities of the act.
I have to agree with you that death penalty meant as a prevention of repeated criminal act but the question is did it lessen any criminal act in the society?
Linear Mode
