-Yes it it you are just repeating that question over and over again, see there is 18 pages full of answers here.
If you have been reading proper I was referring to morality, the ethical side to killing; of course the practical benefits of killing someone is obvious after eighteen pages. But no one has proven it is MORALLY right. For once GAGA read properly.
Srry. What i meant was that it is not moral to kill anyone. The main reason why you wanted to kill him is because he did the inmoral thing of killing someone. And since you consider that killing is inmoral, then you should not do such a thing.So how can killing be moral?
I couldn't say if I was for or against the death penalty because I haven't had a family member murdered or and I don't know so I can't say. I don't know what I'll be for if a family member of mine was hurt.
I see pages of justication via pragmatic reasons. I don't see arguments on morality.
I had actually argued something along these lines earlier, but my post was at the end of a page and likely overlooked. My argument in this regard is that the death penalty should not be a moral valuation, but rather a legal one. In criminal court, it is not that criminal actions are immoral, it is that they are illegal. Now, murder is one of those crimes that breaches moral code and criminal code so seeing the difference here is hard. But consider most of the other laws we have: speed limits, paying taxes, international trafficking laws, etc. None of these laws fall into the category of morally depraved acts. And it would sound silly to say that driving over the speed limit is immoral. Perhaps the death penalty should also be assessed in this type of morality vacuum. We should decide if it's right based on pre-established law and not an arbitrary system of morality which is inherently flawed.
NatGeo actually ran a program about a guy about to be executed. He actually said that the worse thing that could happen to him would be that something would happen to delay the execution. He really did want to be killed to get out of prison.
I think that Life in Prision without parole is more punishing then geting the death sentence because if the convict is about to die, they dont have enough time, or done even, think about what they have done, the consequences of it, etc, etc.
I am against the death penalty, for the reason that we can't be 100% sure (for some crimes). So as long as there is even a small possibility that the criminal is innocent it should not be applied.
