Yes, to me this is a cut and dry issue. If you commit Murder. (the purposeful (not accidental) ending of someones life). Taking a life to me means that you have chosen death. Thus forfeit your right to life.
Making an attempt to kill (or Maim) someone means they have the right to kill you in order to protect their right to life.
This is not a subject to be hedged nor played out with scenario after scenario. Don’t screw around with people’s lives you may end up losing yours. This is all about being held to task. Your actions have consequences. (I also find it incredibly ironic the most liberal minded people believe that we should abolish the death penalty but are perfectly fine with abortion. To me this is insane…. murder of the innocent is OK, but killing the guilty is not… is it because these people harbor secret guilt and do not want to be held accountable? Something to think about.
One other thing. Muslims seem to have taken to a quick and devious way of maiming with acid or fire. Crimes of this nature are supremely cruel and should be punished with death.
Categories
Political beliefs (Death Penalty)
7 replies on “Political beliefs (Death Penalty)”
I like Ben Shapiro’s take on the death penalty. It is needed to prevent tribalism. If we let people get away with murder, then the victim’s side will retaliate and the murdering continues. Gangs prove that out. The death penalty is for the good of society as a whole.
Regarding murders of passion or justifiable homicide, those would simply have to be played out in court.
To quote Spock – “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
In general, I agree. In some circumstances, however, I do not think the death penalty is a just punishment. Take this scenario for example: an otherwise non-violent law-abiding father walks in on someone raping his daughter and beats him to death in a fit of rage and passion. Would you feel comfortable condemning that father to death for murder when his actions were clearly driven by his protective love of his daughter? Obviously he should serve a sentence, but I do not think a person such as this would be a danger to society if left alive and released eventually.
In general, though, for evil, stone-cold, malicious murder, I agree that the death penalty is just. Probably even for attempted murder in some circumstances.
Oh! I agree with you. But I do not view the scenario you laid out as murder. Defending your family is justifiable Homicide. Not murder. Just as self defense is not murder.
I’d say this is still murder. He could have just held him down or knocked him out and called the cops; killing the guy is murder as soon as you are no longer in danger. Lets assume the father is ripped and the rapist is skinny.
The laws of of many states classify the homicide in defense of others as justifiable. I know mine does.
With your last remark, you are going down the road of the “proportional force” argument. That leads to saying that if someone attacks you with a knife, you can’t use a gun. Or, if that same skinny guy attacks the big, burly guy with lethal intent, the big guy can’t defend himself.
I am a big believer in, “Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.”
I’m coming at it from this angle: once the attacker is neutralized, you don’t have the right to exact justice upon them anymore. That is why we have courts. Perhaps our hypothetical rapist deserved what he got, but he should have gotten it the proper way, through sentencing by a judge, and not via vigilante justice. As conservatives, we must be law and order people, even towards criminals. I would much rather that a rapist be treated with civility and given a fair trial before receiving his fate than have him killed on the spot.
As far as proportional force is concerned, I think we can all agree it has some merit. If someone pickpockets you and you notice, you don’t suddenly have the right to shoot them.
I am not even sure the father in that case should serve time. Although being the father of 2 girls, my opinion may be bias.