Should he get the Death Penalty?

Should he get the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    13

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#21
CaptainObvious said:
Except that the person the government sanctioned to death committed a crime and the people the deceased killed did not.
The family of an executed prisoner committed no crime.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#27
CaptainObvious said:
His family wasn't on trial, he was. And he paid for what he did to the victim's as well as their families. This is his fault, he did this to not just them but to his own family.
The state could have given him life, so we cannot excuse them from culpability. If killing people is wrong, in part, because of what it does to the loved ones of the person killed, then we have to take that into account when considering the morality of all killings, and not just those done unlawfully.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#28
The state could have given him life, so we cannot excuse them from culpability. If killing people is wrong, in part, because of what it does to the loved ones of the person killed, then we have to take that into account when considering the morality of all killings, and not just those done unlawfully.
Giving him life or sentencing him to death is a different subject altogether. The Constitution allows it and it's codified in statute for the commission of certain crimes. The families of the convicted should not be taken into account because they aren't victims of the crime committed.

The taking of life lawfully and unlawfully are two separate and distinct things. Murder is unjustified killing, the death penalty is not.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#29
CaptainObvious said:
Giving him life or sentencing him to death is a different subject altogether. The Constitution allows it and it's codified in statute for the commission of certain crimes. The families of the convicted should not be taken into account because they aren't victims of the crime committed.

The taking of life lawfully and unlawfully are two separate and distinct things. Murder is unjustified killing, the death penalty is not.
I think we're discussing if the death penalty is justified. So to say it's justified because it's justified is circular reasoning, and not all that convincing. Also, since when should a court only take into account victims of a crime committed? That seems wholly arbitrary.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#30
I think we're discussing if the death penalty is justified. So to say it's justified because it's justified is circular reasoning, and not all that convincing. Also, since when should a court only take into account victims of a crime committed? That seems wholly arbitrary.
You understand there is a difference between justified in the sense that the death penalty is not justified in general and justified for the crime committed? I also meant justified Constitutionally.

My point is you calling the death penalty murder is incorrect. It doesn't fit the definition of murder.

It's not arbitrary at all. The families of the victim's are seeking justice, the familiy of the accused is not.