2006-06-13 11:15:12 · 15 answers · asked by Catherine D 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I have wondered about that more than you will ever know.
I think that they are thinking it is a deterrent to murder, even though studies have shown this is definitely not the case. My personal opinion is that it is hard to sell the idea of the sanctity of life when you are engaged in taking life yourself; it just cheapens life in general and makes it seem less important. I also hear people say that it is the ultimate punishment, the absolute worst punishment the government can dish out. But if you read about being in prison, or listen to what people in prison for life have to say, it seems to me that a true life sentence, without any possibility of parole, is a much worse punishment.
2006-06-13 11:29:27 · answer #1 · answered by Bronwen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a way to show that the more serious offense has the most serious consequence. Until you have a family member murdered by a sociopath, you probably won't get the idea behind it.
My cousin's bf shot and killed her. Prior to that, he had confessed to me that he had fore bombed the high school, he shot his best friend in the foot for not being able to go on some hunting trip. He also got me an AK-74 with 5 magazines, and 2000 rds. While he was on trial for killing my cousin, he was out on bail. He broke into a house, stole the brand new tv, stereo, computer, and jewelry. He also raped and sodomized the 13 yo girl. She will never have children do to the extent of the injuries. He also left the country on a hunting trip. I was in the 7th grade when all this went down. He got out of prison before I graduated. THen he went on and was finally arrested for the attempted murder of two state troopers. Now you see why we need capital punishment.
2006-06-13 18:36:34 · answer #2 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn’t have anything to do with showing that killing is wrong. The individual convicted of killing can face a number of different charges, from justified killing to various degrees of manslaughter to first degree murder. To each of these charges, if convicted, differing degrees of penalties can apply. When that penalty is death by State execution you can be sure the crime committed is heinous to a high degree. Say a pedophile who has been convicted of attacking children and murdering them, and doing so more than once. Such individuals have lost any right to life is the idea behind such convictions.
The State also authorizes other intentional deaths by representatives of the State, such as, police who kill perpetrators in the act of harming others, or, soldiers who kill during war. There is also State justified killing by citizens with such acts as self defense.
The State doesn’t make the determination that killing is wrong. You are mixing State laws with a moral determination. Further, even for most moral philosophies, you have used the incorrect terminology with the word killing. It would have been more correct to use the word murder as there is a big difference between murder and killing.
2006-06-13 19:06:33 · answer #3 · answered by Randy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its called corporal punishment. Its crazy I know, but that's the law. The government is unjust and pathetic. You can kill a child in abortion but not kill a baby or adult. Seriously what is the difference? I think some people who make these laws up need psychiatric help and need to read the definition of murder.
One other thing to think about! There are lots of people in prison that are innocent! Where is our justice system going with punishing the wrong people?
2006-06-13 20:28:41 · answer #4 · answered by Nisi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's to show that killing is wrong. I think the government kills criminals to get rid of them for good. I'm all for it personally!
2006-06-13 18:20:39 · answer #5 · answered by yeahyeahyeah 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To protect the innocent from being killed by a criminal. We all and our children have the right to be protected from crime. Why would you stick up for creeps? Why should someone have to die or be injured because of some Bully.
2006-06-13 18:39:44 · answer #6 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate to answer a question with a question, but what makes you think that this is the reason our government has capital punishment?
You're better off asking if capital punishment is an effective deterrent to major crimes, or if it is an ethical way to remove a dangerous person who is beyond rehabilitation from society.
2006-06-13 18:25:31 · answer #7 · answered by qwchrbichn 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not done to show that "killing is wrong". It is meant to be a punishment for a crime committed than is also supposed to work as a deterrent to others from committing similar crimes.
2006-06-13 18:23:31 · answer #8 · answered by ninjadanielsan03 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if I went up to some random person and killed them for no reason wouldn't that be wrong?
2006-06-13 18:18:12 · answer #9 · answered by pheynx25 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this is a kill or be killed situation. I'll kill you now, so that you can't kill me later. Does that sound fair?
2006-06-13 21:19:34 · answer #10 · answered by ricardocoav 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋