Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
As soon as you break the laws of society, you are then no longer subject to the same sympathy as a normal citizen. If he killed people in a state that has capital punishment and a jury found him guilty with malice, then he has to accept the punishment of the state.
Its not complicated, and yes I believe in capital punishment.
|
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - Mencken
You seem to be equating morality with law. They are not the same thing. What of the question of whether the state is RIGHT in its laws and their attendant punishments, for simply because a law is on the books does not mean it is just. Segregation was at one time the law in certain states in the USA - does that mean that its targets should have accepted their fate as second-class citizens?
That the law dictates something is a poor argument; better to ask WHY the law is this way before saying it is a good thing or not.
As far as capital punishment goes, the arguments for are generally of two sorts: efficiency and retribution. Neither seems compelling, for efficiency is the last thing we should expect (or want) when dealing with matters as momentous as ending someone's life, be they criminal or not; as far as retribution goes, I would far prefer to live in a society where vendetta is not sanctioned by the government as a legitimate response to injury.
The original article, however, reeks of schmaltz and is a poor argument against capital punishment altogether. The only people it is likely to convince are those who can be swayed by an appeal to the emotions, and that sort are easily manipulated back into the pro-execution stance by an even more heartrending story from the victim's perspective.