Quote:
Quote by: saltinespike  Since this topic has not been active lately, and the fact that I was not able to be a part of it, I am bringing it back up.
The Death Penalty.
I think that it is quite justified and quite simple: you kill someone and we'll kill you back. We are justified because you (someone with the death penalty) were unjustified in what you did. Of course, this is not restricted to killing someone. It all depends on the situation.
But whenever you break the rules, you can always expect a punishment which leads back to "We are justified because you (someone with the death penalty) were unjustified in what you did."
What's your opinion? |
When empirical evidence shows that the conviction of a murderer is always correct, then the death penalty might be acceptable. It would still be pointless and petty and serve no good purpose, but it might be acceptable. As long as innocent people are mistakenly convicted, the death penalty is murder no less than any of the original crimes we kill them for. You put it exactly right: all we are doing is "killing you back," and sometimes we're killing them first, since they may not be guilty. Methinks that moral high ground is crumbling under you, there.