"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[Lawrence of Arabia]

if you can answer this question, then i will become pro death penalty

why is it that it is wrong for an individual to kill another individual, but right for the state to kill that individual, for the murder of another individual?

[Velociryx]

can't GET much more isolated than being on Death Row, Ramo....but he still managed to squeeze out one more murder FROM DEATH ROW before they fried him.

Another sugesstion, mayhaps?

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Do you mean the one being killed is a murderer?

The reason is because a private individual is not competent (i.e. doesn't have jurisdiction) to determine the guilt of the person, but the State does. It's exactly the same for ALL crimes.

EDIT: re LoA

[Velociryx]

Lawrence: For the same reason we amputate limbs of some hospital patients to spare the whole.

-=Vel=-

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yea, its called solitary confinement - they never had a problem in alcatraz.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The reason is because a private individual is not competent (i.e. doesn't have jurisdiction) to determine the guilt of the person, but the State does. It's exactly the same for ALL crimes.

and what gives the right to the state to kill?

Lawrence: For the same reason we amputate limbs of some hospital patients to spare the whole.

crappy analogy. the individual can exist without society, but soceity cannot exist without the individual

[Velociryx]

Alcatraz had more than it's share of prison killings (including a number of its guards). Even those in solitary confinement have contact (however limited) with others. This is by no means a bullet proof methodology of seeing that the killers will not kill again.

-=Vel=-

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Alcatraz had more than it's share of prison killings (including a number of its guards). Even those in solitary confinement have contact (however limited) with others. This is by no means a bullet proof methodology of seeing that the killers will not kill again.

those who were in solitary confinement never killed a single person during their stay in the hole (usually 2 weeks or so)

[Velociryx]

Lawrence, while what you say is no doubt true, the fact is, these murders are IN our society. Had they been outside of our society, we'd not have even known of their crimes. It is that they are members OF our society that we come to know them and what they do, and AS members of the society (the whole), they are subject to punishment (including death) FROM the whole.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

More acceptable than dying, though.

Irrelevent. No one's going to committ a murder if he really thinks that he might go to prison for life.

can't GET much more isolated than being on Death Row, Ramo....but he still managed to squeeze out one more murder FROM DEATH ROW before they fried him.

Another sugesstion, mayhaps?

As Lawrence pointed out, there's solitary confinement. I've never heard of murders from solitary.

[Velociryx]

those who were in solitary confinement never killed a single person during their stay in the hole (usually 2 weeks or so)

Irrelevant, I would say.

The ONLY viable measure is "do they kill again?"

Not, do they kill again when by themselves.

That part doesn't matter, because the answer is obviously no (or if yes, then it's a suicide, and problem solved!)

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Lawrence, while what you say is no doubt true, the fact is, these murders are IN our society. Had they been outside of our society, we'd not have even known of their crimes. It is that they are members OF our society that we come to know them and what they do, and AS members of the society (the whole), they are subject to punishment (including death) FROM the whole.

But why? If it's wrong for a person to kill out of revenge, why is it moral for a state to do so?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Lawrence, while what you say is no doubt true, the fact is, these murders are IN our society.
Had they been outside of our society, we'd not have even known of their crimes. It is that they are members OF our society that we come to know them and what they do, and AS members of the society (the whole), they are subject to punishment (including death) FROM the whole.

-=Vel=-

but that still doesnt answer the question. what gives us the right (as a soceity) to kill someone for killing someone. wouldnt you call that hypocritical.

[Velociryx]

Because society has a right to protect itself from those who would threaten it.

If society is threatened by a murderous individual, he is (or certainly can be) put to death.

If society is threatened by another society, war results, and LOTS of people are put to death.

It's the way the world works guys.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

It's not the way it works in other countries.

I'd add that incarcerating everyone isn't practical in war. Killing isn't necessarily revenge.