The Death Penalty

[devonin]

Originally Posted by rzr

The empathy of the mass majority prohibits the generally needed and frankly deserved execution of criminals.

Prove 100% that a criminal is guilty of such a crime, and you might have a leg to stand on. However I don't see how you can say "The penalty for killing someone is that we kill someone" and not see a pretty serious problem with that.

Again, because too many people are sympathetic for taking the mortality and defying human rights, it's under used.

This sentence doesn't make sense, please clarify.

However, if one kills someone then that murderer deserves to die as well.

Prove it. What authority are you appealing to in order to claim you know who does or doesn't deserve to die? Also, even if we granted in certain circumstances that some murders are sufficiently heinous and horrific that we might consider executing the offender, where do you draw that line? What kind of murder is bad enough to execute and what kind isn't? I think we can all agree that the death penalty for self-defense killings is probably not warranted, but there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances that make an absolute statement like that logically untenable.

But if someone important is killed, they are avenged with the death penalty. But if an average joe then they're imprisoned. Get that?

I get that you're pretty much dead wrong on that subject. Look into the cases of those on death row and I think you'll find that the vast majority killed "some person" in the scheme of global affairs.