If murder is against the law and you can be sentenced to death then who holds the government accountable for taking the muderers life? Murder is to kill intentionally and with premeditation, so if the government intentionally takes anothers life then who holds them responsible? Would it not be better to just get rid of the death penaly altogether? personally i would rather have murderers spend every waking moment of their lives locked up thinking about how they lost their freedom.
2007-02-17 20:50:37 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
premeditated or not murder is murder nad do we really elect the officials? The government officials are appointed and not by us, an election just makes it look a little less rigged. Whether we pay for a murderers food, shelter and warmth why give him/her the easy way out by commiting the act that put him/her there in the first place.
2007-02-17 21:54:15 · update #1
I'm in complete agreeance with you. I just think that prisons should not be as nice as they are. Prisoners should be locked all day everyday in a tiny cell with a hard cot and a toilet and that's it. No death penalty, that's kinda hypocritical.
2007-02-17 20:56:38 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This question is supposed to be some kind of paradox, but it's really not.
We have an elected government, empowered by the citizens as a collective. That means that when we impose the death penalty, it's the people imposing the penalty. We're saying that we don't want murderers among us and this is what we're going to do about it.
This is the real paradox:
When you catch a murderer, what do you do with them? Let them go so they can kill again, or execute them?
Either way, your decision is responsible for the loss of further life.
(Putting them in jail for the rest of their life is cheating. They'll still lose their life while in custody, it just takes longer for it to happen.)
2007-02-18 05:22:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government does have the right to protect it's people from a murderer who has no conscience about what he did. That's a cold blooded killer.
In my humble opinion if he cared so little about the life he took out of this world. He should be killed. Otherwise all of America is feeding him, housing him, providing free medical health care for him. And allowing him freedom to not be disturbed by anyone else if he so chooses.
And what of the victim's family? Yeah they're thinking of both their loved ones that killed. And the killer that escaped into the American criminal justice system and gets to finish out living a long and care free life.
No, the government is not committing murder as they execute him because he killed innocent citizens.
2007-02-18 05:25:22 · answer #3 · answered by Uncle Remus 54 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somehow your contention holds truth in it. however, my opinion on the matter is that, Death penalty are not haphazardly laid to just anybody. A death sentence is only applicable to crime as defined by law. it is with due process that the sentence is laid. Unlike a premeditated murder with "MOTIVES" apart from giving JUSTICE with DUE PROCESS, death sentences are not right there and then served like a hamburger ordered on a fastfood joint. Somehow, it may be hard to believe, but there really are people who have no "concience" and that no matter how many lifetime you allow them to live a life in misery over a thing they've done, they never would come into repentance or regret because they find fulfillment in making evil things. Life is fair and as the saying goes, Dura lex Sed Lex. :-)
2007-02-18 05:13:24 · answer #4 · answered by carvee 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a tricky question. You would hope that any government had been democratically elected and therefore represents the will of the people and also that the justice system was fair. As a deterrant, does the death penalty work? Can we be absolutely sure nobody has been wrongly convicted?
2007-02-18 05:01:13 · answer #5 · answered by the_emrod 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. However, when you have a man such as Ted Bundy, or a host of other serial killers, is it worth letting them live? I don't approve of 99.99% of the killings, but in some cases, its needed. Good arguement, but its a dirty job someone has to do. Government sanctioned killings are not murder. Death sentence is the effect of multiple human rights violations (murder, rape, etc). Cause and effect.
2007-02-18 04:56:44 · answer #6 · answered by synjhindb 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think who kill should be killed
that is in all countries in all over the world law
may be in some countries they canceled death sanction
2007-02-18 04:58:11 · answer #7 · answered by micho 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
come and live in the uk if you want the easy life.
2007-02-18 04:56:30 · answer #8 · answered by oobedoo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lock Them up......Throw away the Key.......
2007-02-18 04:57:31 · answer #9 · answered by bodie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
could u please clarify ur quetion
2007-02-18 05:00:26 · answer #10 · answered by uni_tesfu2008 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋