Is the sentence a good or bad policy? Some states allow it, and some countries aloow it, yet others dont. Yes, I know some of might say everyone deserves to live, and most of the time i would agree with you, but what if there is a man that has been tested positive for some sort of disorder that causes him to have a strong urge to kill at random times, and he was either about to be set free in your town or put to death. What would you say? There is the unethical and the inhumane reason, but a large reason many places ban it is the cost. Some states are backed up with people on death row, because they have to pay lawyers to file paperwork, and keep those hundreds, maybe thousands, of people alive for howver long. Think, do you really want your tax dollars going there?
I agree with dumbbutdeadly on this one. It would be sort of like an eye for an eye. When someone Willingly takes the life of an other there life should be taken away.
I agree with dumbbutdeadly on this one. It would be sort of like an eye for an eye. When someone Willingly takes the life of an other there life should be taken away.
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth - This can't be used in every circumstance. If someone murders 20 people and you serve them with the death sentence is it really an eye for an eye? Because they're still 19 up on you.
I agree with dumbbutdeadly on this one. It would be sort of like an eye for an eye. When someone Willingly takes the life of an other there life should be taken away.
Which would mean that we would also confiscate money or objects from the house of a thief. Or sexually molest r*pers.
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth - This can't be used in every circumstance. If someone murders 20 people and you serve them with the death sentence is it really an eye for an eye? Because they're still 19 up on you.
I guess you have a point there. The only way you could make it fair if make it more painful the more people they killed.
Which would mean that we would also confiscate money or objects from the house of a thief. Or sexually molest r*pers.
I am only talking about murder, not any other crimes.
I am only talking about murder, not any other crimes.
I know. I applied your logic to other crimes as well, just to see how it sounds. And it sounds ridiculous. I agree to a certain point that we can't handle murderers in the same proportions than more 'trivial' crimes, but I find it stupid to kill people only because they also killed. It's not a good reasoning on it's own.
I am only talking about murder, not any other crimes.
I'd think it would be better to rehabilitate people. I know it's not exactly as easy as killing people. And some people might never be rehabilitated but I think it's worth a shot. If people are killing other people then they most likly have a problem. And if someone has a problem they should be helped. A lot of people would still have to be killed, but we can save a lot of people too.
If you used the whole eye for an eye thing, human rights as we know them would totally collapse. Human right arguments are very strong against the death sentence, imagine what would happen if we applied:
I think of it though as if the murderer killed someone in my family that I was very close to. What would you want to do to that person?
I'd think it would be better to rehabilitate people.
It is of course better to rehabilitate people but this doesn't always work. Sometimes they come out and seem fine and then go off killing again. There are also people that believe killing is the only way to get to heaven. I saw an interview with one of these people a few years back. The guy said that anyone that didn't kill went to hell.
Yeah for some people it doesn't work, but for some people it does. What about if someone was r*ped and murdered his or her killer? Should they really be sentenced to death?
What about if someone was r*ped and murdered his or her attacker? Should they really be sentenced to death?
Hmm. I don't know. I have just been talking about people that kill for the fun of it. They should probably not be sentenced to death but punished in some other way. Rehabilitation could work in this situation. It is still very wrong for the person to kill someone. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If it was considered self defense and there was no other way out of it then there should be no punishment because the attacker would be a psycho killer.
