and by you i mean a victim's family member and/or close relatives. imagine some *beep* hit and run your mother and she is dead. then they catch the *beep* and give you a variety of options to kill him/her. would you do it?
--
[deleted]
No, to me it is an archaic, awful procedure. We live in the 21st century, not the middle ages. 90% of the time these people committing these acts are mentally disturbed, abused, ill educated etc etc. How is killing someone like that going to get your loved one back? It isn't. I for one would much rather know that that person is languishing in a tiny cell serving penance for the crime they committed. The term an eye for an eye is just ignorance, and it also baffles me that it's some of the most religious states in America who still partake in this act. In a way they are saying that they have the power over their "beloved" god and it seems like such a hypocritical act. But there you go lol.
shareHell yeah I'd do it! These days it's as easy as pushing 1 or 2 buttons.
shareThen you are no better than them
share[deleted]
I think in Norway they are too cultured to think that way to be perfectly honest
shareYou cannot take the moral high ground, and legislate against homicide, if you use homicide as a method of punishment. This is a completely logically inconsistent position to take. We as a society should hold higher moral values that those we seek to stop committing crimes of whatever nature.
Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste......
Is it wrong to lock people up for kidnapping? I don't understand the whole problem with giving someone the same they dealt out in life. It's karma for them to die if they are guilty of murder. I don't care what breaks they got in life.
Another thing that I find funny about anti-death penalty people. They say 'Well, it's worse to spend life in prison'. If that's so, why do these guys usually want to stay alive and fight death for as long as possible? Easy answer that tends to confuse many.
Lemaricus Davidson.
Maybe in some cases you would be right about that statement. But in a case where someone is mutilated and raped...killing the perpetrator is FAR more merciful which means the one killing the perpetrator IS better than them.
I shouldn't go off on a tangent but I'm going to anyway:
1st list:
Pride, Self-esteem
Wealth
Ambition, Boldness
Vengeance, Justice
Self-Worth
Profit
Challenge
Indulgence
Pleasure, Sensuality
Individualism
Independence
Autonomy
2nd list:
Humility
Poverty
Patience, Meekness (the meek shall inherit the earth)
Forgiveness
Weakness, Sin
Self-Sacrifice, Charity
Safety
Self-Restraint
Anti-physical, Shame
Altruism
Dependence
Obedience
The 2nd list are the values we as a society view in a positive light that are commendable. So if we are talking about what should be considered good or bad then we should ask ourselves which on of those lists would give oneself a more fulfilling life? Which list would most effectively propel the human race to advance and to achieve greatness? I'll let you decide.
Morality has itself become immoral.
I think the nazi's wrote something similar about the jews, they thought it was okay to kill them as well.
Morality has itself become immoral.
Your whole post is immoral.
@laurendoward
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Lauren, that is a HORRIBLE analogy! The Jews weren't convicted double murderers!
The Witchita Massacre and the Memphis double murder is why we have the death penalty!
Great post snoop!
"Morality has itself become immoral."
I may not be a historical expert, but from what I've deduced morality has always been bull *beep*
I can only hope that I can stay to my principles and find some strength to let it pass...
share[deleted]
you bet your ass
shareYes.
Without a doubt.