Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

1. Not an argument against capital punishment. The better argument would be to lower the costs. Besides which the cost of DP cases in comparison with life without parole (LWOP) is exaggerated based on national averages of cost for incarcerating all criminals regardless of offence and not the cost of incarcerating those particularly dangerous criminals who would otherwise warrant the DP due to their dangerous character in confinement cells. Also the increasing costs incurred for caring for geriatric inmates. Realistically the cost of defending and prosecuting LWOP cases is equal to the cost of defending and prosecuting DP cases. If an inmate spends an average of six years on death row then the costs are naturally less than caring and incarcerating a dangerous criminal for life.

2. Not an argument against capital punishment. Considering the efficacy of any human endeavor to have a 100% failsafe against error is fallacious and intellectually dishonest. People kill much more people by "accident" with cars, but we don't realistically consider abolishing driving because of that much more accurate statistic, since we recognize a degree of inherent human fallibility to any human endeavor. Considering everything else that humans do which naturally involve the risk of death we may as well wrap ourselves in cellophane and sit in one spot keeping an eye out for falling objects. Besides every effort is made to ensure only guilty persons are executed and the statistics implying innocence are more procedural errors and evidential issues rather than an indication of absolute innocence, which would warrant release.

3.& 8. Also not an argument against capital punishment since it insinuates that race, class and/or intelligence should be a factor in deciding who qualifies for consideration of the DP instead of the severity of the crime committed. Even more insidious is promoting the idea that race is the only qualifier for consideration of the DP. Those who have proven mental illness according to DMSRIII standards never qualify for the DP, as is temporary insanity, when provable, post partum depression and the like. According to studies white DP candidates are more likely to be put to death at a 32% to 27% margin than non whites, particularly when considerations of severity of the crime, repeat offenders and the race of the victim are factored in.

4. Not an argument against capital punishment since we do have a society in which individuals violate the rights of others by denying them the sovereignty of there own minds and bodies and the right to live a peaceful and fruitful life by murdering them without cause.

5.&6. The purpose of law enforcement, the judicial system and the penal system is to protect law abiding, peaceful members of society who respect, by instinct, character and behavior the social contract, the golden rule and its propotional addends. I suffer whenever an individual takes it upon himself to take the life of "human beings" and expect, with support, that that action doesn't warrant reciprocation, giving more respect and consideration for and to the criminal than his victims.

7. Patently false, please take the time to research studies, since they are vast and copious, showing that crime is significantly and proportionately reduced compared to the times when DP was unconstitutional and when it was reinstated, even so reduced that the increase of population since then has no effect, either statisticly or comparatively on the numbers. Meaning that without the DP crime increased so much that an increase of population with DP still doesn't reach the crime numbers without DP.

Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease.

Naci Mocan; anti Death Penalty proponent:

"Science does really draw a conclusion...There is no question about it. The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect. The results are robust. They don't really go away. I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them?" (emphasis added)

I suggest that you rent "Dead Man Walking", "The Green Mile", "Public Enemy" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" if there is some connection between "movies" and the validity of your argument.

At 2100 today John Allen Mohammad (Beltway Sniper/terrorist) is scheduled for execution in the murderous deaths of 10 innocent people. Mohammed had intended to murder six white people a day for thirty days to terrorize, (his words), the nation and had designs on forming an Army to extract revenge against white people (the devil, his words) for slavery, hypocrisy and the foreign policy of the US. To bad he couldn't see a better way. Rest in Peace, John.

[Scott]

Anyway, here's a few reasons [to not allow execution as punishment]:

1) It's expensive.
2) 'Innocent' people get killed by it due to false convictions.
3) It's racist and classist. A rich guy who did the same thing but who shares the same race as the lawmakers and judges will not get executed when a poor guy of a different race will.
4) I would rather have a society where the rule is simple: No murder.
5) I think society would be safer if the sole purpose of law enforcement, the judicial system and the incarceration system was to protect people, and it was not diverted towards the goal of causing suffering as punishment (i.e. as opposed to having to cause suffering as a means towards another goal such as rehabilitation or defense).
6) When harm is caused to any sentient being--even the meanest, most dangerous among us--I sympathize with that pain, and it makes me unhappy. I also feel most people share this sympathy, and are made unhappy by murders taking place or suffering in general even when it happens to someone we do not know personally.
7) I believe the death penalty increases the amount of violent crime (e.g. murder, rape, battery, etc.) in society by creating a brutalization effect.
8) Retards and the mentally ill get murdered by it. In fact, I regard the distinction between those deemed too mentally ill to be convicted and those deemed able to be convicted of a offensively violent act such as murder or rape to be arbitrary. I think it makes more sense to treat all offensively violent convicts as having a dangerous mental disorder which requires as to incarcerate them until if ever they can be treated to the point of being safe for release (i.e. rehabilitated). So under my unique view, everyone who gets executed is either mentally sick or innocent.

1 is an argument against it. If something can be shown to cost money to do but at the same time has not been shown to provide benefits, then almost anybody would agree not to do it because cost is a drawback.

2 is an argument against it. Just because it may be worth the harm inadvertently done to innocent people to do something that provides some other benefit, that doesn't mean the harm caused to innocent people is not a drawback to be used in the argument against doing it. The deaths caused by driving cars is an argument against driving cars, but the benefit of transporting desired goods, services and people is a benefit.

3 is an argument against the death penalty. Statistically, even in the United States, one who is convicted of murdering a minority is less likely to get the death penalty than one who is convicted of murdering a white person. One who is white is less likely to get the death penalty than one who is not white. That's a fact.

4 is an argument. Even if people break the law, that doesn't change the argument that consistency and simplicity make for more effective and supportable laws.

Juice, nobody is debating that one of the current 'purposes' of the justice system is to get revenge. When you keep pointing that out, and pointing out that historically law, courts and judicial sentences have been used to punish others, it is a straw-man argument. It does not change or refute the reasons I gave in 5 and 6 for not doing something:

5) I think society would be safer if the sole purpose of law enforcement, the judicial system and the incarceration system was to protect people, and it was not diverted towards the goal of causing suffering as punishment (i.e. as opposed to having to cause suffering as a means towards another goal such as rehabilitation or defense).

6) When harm is caused to any sentient being--even the meanest, most dangerous among us--I sympathize with that pain, and it makes me unhappy. I also feel most people share this sympathy, and are made unhappy by murders taking place or suffering in general even when it happens to someone we do not know personally.

I believe the death penalty increases crime. The proposition that the death penalty increases violent crime is not "patently false." You will not be able to find any credible studies that use statistically significant research to show otherwise. You could show that somewhere there happened to be more murder when the death penalty happened to not be used and less murder when the death penalty was around. Concluding cause or even correlation from that would be utterly fallacious.

Anyway, here's an interesting fact: A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty.

8 is an argument against the death penalty. People who fall under the official definition of mentally ill have been executed. Many murders really don't care about mental illness. Would the authorities who executed a teenage girl accused of adultery by stoning her to death in Somalia have cared if she was mentally ill?

Juice, I have provided many examples of the drawbacks of this type of murder. I would be more than surprised if anybody would actually suggest that murder, or in this case specifically the death penalty, does not any drawbacks. When choosing to do something, we weigh the benefits against the drawbacks. But you have explained no benefits of the death penalty.

Every time I have tried to figure out from what you have written what you think the benefit is, such as perhaps the pleasure sadists would feel from hurting somebody, you have rejected it.

Alun, I think the disagreement is from your use of the term deserve when I think in amoral terms.

No; I don't really care about the terms, I am just trying to say that the evaluation, whatever it is, ought to be consistent between punishment and defensive harm.

When I say I directly get less displeasure from the attacker being hurt than I directly get from the one he is attacking being hurt, perhaps you describe the presence of less sympathy for the attacker as me thinking he deserves it.

You're essentially saying here that if a guy becomes an attacker, he makes himself less valuable/important to you, right? Does this change in value occur regardless of whether he has completed his attack or not? Or does he become more valuable again once he's committed the aggressive act?

By punishing the attacker, we always inflict some type of harm upon him--but we also uphold an integral ideal or principle that is generally good for people. It is my view that after some degree of aggression, a person has reduced their value to the point that it makes sense to inflict harm upon them to pursue the value of the ideal--and perhaps, in a way, restore some of the value that was lost to the attacker.

[Scott]

Alun,

In response to you asking me how come I support defensive uses of force but not offensive punishment. I pointed out two reasons:

I want defensive force used against an offensive attacker to stop the offensive attacker because (1) I get less displeasure from the attacker getting hurt than the one he is attacking and because (2) I think it will lead to much less attacks happening when potential attackers realize their attacks will most likely be reversed on them and when they are physically disabled from hurting themselves and others by being incarcerated and rehabilitated...

I think the second one is the more compelling argument.

In comparison, if one could show that the death penalty actually significantly deterred violent crime or had some other indirect benefit, I think that would be an argument for it. That's completely different from the feeling that there is something inherently desirable about hurting someone who has hurt others as payback. I think that hurt is inherently undesirable in itself. But I think the benefits gained by having a society in which offensive violence is disallowed and in which defensive force is used to stop it is worth the inherent drawback of causing harm to the attacker.

Alun, your latest response seems geared towards the first point, which is that I get less displeasure from the attacker getting hurt than the one he is attacking. While true, I don't think it is a very compelling argument for engaging in defensive force. Anyway, let me answer your questions:

You're essentially saying here that if a guy becomes an attacker, he makes himself less valuable/important to you, right?

Yes, when I know someone has or is intending to offensively attack another person he has made himself less valuable to me (but not non-valuable or dis-valuable). In a similar way, the life of a 50-year-old man is less valuable to me than the life of a 5-year-old girl.

Does this change in value occur regardless of whether he has completed his attack or not?

I suppose it occurs regardless. But when he actually completes his attack, I am more likely to believe he is that type of a person--a mean, selfish victimizer.

Or does he become more valuable again once he's committed the aggressive act?

I do not see how finishing an offensively violent act would make him more valuable. Perhaps I misunderstood this question.

By punishing the attacker, we always inflict some type of harm upon him--but we also uphold an integral ideal or principle that is generally good for people. It is my view that after some degree of aggression, a person has reduced their value to the point that it makes sense to inflict harm upon them to pursue the value of the ideal...

The harm we inflict on him is undesirable.

The desire I have to protect his would-be victims is much greater than the desire not to cause harm to him. I assume the desire almost everybody has to protect his would-be victims is much greater than the desire not to cause harm to him.

I do not see how "upholding" this so-called "integral ideal or principle" of an eye-for-an-eye (or one-eye-for-two-eyes or two-eyes-for-one-eye) is, in itself, worth hurting someone.

Even if it was worth it, I do not see it as a compelling argument to hurt a person, just like my feeling alone is not a compelling argument to use defensive force--as opposed to the more compelling argument that the common use of defensive force makes society safer. Similarly, I do not think nationalist feelings is a compelling argument to murder people of a different race, religion or ethnicity because the nationalist considers their lives less valuable than lives of the members of his own nation. I do not think saving the life of one 'innocent girl' would be a compelling argument for murdering another 'innocent' girl whose life is less valuable to the would-be murderers.

When people start talking about who 'deserves' what (or who is 'less undeserving'), as a matter of honesty and clarity, I think it is wise to point out one's personal feelings, but how much any one person values other people's lives compared to each other is not a compelling argument for public policy. Moralizing one's personal opinions by saying someone deserves something or saying they are less undeserving is not a compelling argument. I wouldn't support defensive homicide if I didn't think it also had the utilitarian benefits.

If you were to show me that logically it does not make sense to support defensive force and oppose all murder (and oppose offensive violence in general), that would make me want to be a pacifist not a murder-supporter. Nonetheless, I think there is benefits of defensive homicide that can apply that do not apply to murder. While they share many drawbacks, I think there are some drawbacks inherent to murder that do not always apply to defensive homicide. I think that's why almost everyone wants almost all types of murder to be illegal but wants defense to generally be legal.

Why? How does punishing a person in itself safeguard a justice system? Why can't we only use defensive force against attackers to stop their attack just to protect people, which includes protecting people by incarcerating the attacker. Why do we need to use what's called excessive force, i.e. causing pain to the attacker because we enjoy his suffer in itself when it provides no extra defense?

We don't need to, we need to be able to.

In Holland we do not have a death penalty, in fact the majority of our people are frustrated about the sentences for major crimes being below standard in the eyes of the community but our judges aren't complying to the will of the people.

I am convinced that our legal means to punish crimes is severely hampered by continuously lowering the severity of a sentence.

By being able to "demand" the highest punishment we allow for room to adapt the sentence better to the circumstances.

If the justice system fails to "do right" in the eyes of the community for too long , than it will result in more drastic changes to the legal system.

That's why I believe:

"to safeguard our justice system we must at least be able to punish a person to the extend that there is no more the community could ask for retribution."

I am not saying we should execute offenders guilty of committing a crime punishable by death, I am just saying we should be able to.

I do not see how finishing an offensively violent act would make him more valuable. Perhaps I misunderstood this question.

No; I mean a criminal (who has previously been aggressive) is, in you terms, less valuable, because of his/her aggression.

I do not see how "upholding" this so-called "integral ideal or principle" of an eye-for-an-eye (or one-eye-for-two-eyes or two-eyes-for-one-eye) is, in itself, worth hurting someone.

Because the principle itself keeps many others from getting hurt. If we're all responsible for hurting other people, then we are both more likely to consider the potential harm we're doing to others and to trust others not to harm us. This is not just deterrence, but a trust in deterrence.

how much any one person values other people's lives compared to each other is not a compelling argument for public policy. Moralizing one's personal opinions by saying someone deserves something or saying they are less undeserving is not a compelling argument.

No, again I think you're getting hung up on terms more than I am. "Desert" is usually a function of pre-defined rules, not feelings. Since you insist upon making moral arguments arguments about subjective value, I give you the above formulation. But the ideal is what society has defined justice according to; hence, people "deserve" punishment because they've agreed to the ideal. Admittedly, such a contractual obligation is hard to fathom in today's society, where people aren't really capable of just moving out of town to live the way they want, but an ideal of responsibility--of equity--is not really dependent on individual subjective values, seeing as we all want not to be harmed, by definition.

As I've already said, I don't support the death penalty, but I do not think it is total archaic nonsense either. It fits into the above principle of justice; where it is different is that people are promising, on some level, to give up their lives, via a contract, when this is giving up something that is probably more important to most people than even the ideal of responsibility. I.e. it's an unfair contract (just like it would be an unfair contract if you were to trade your house for a paper clip).

1. Expensive compared to what? The innocent life(s) that was taken without cause? How much is one life worth, and how can restitution be made to victim survivors if life and death are a matter of expense and cost to benefit analysis?

If the concern is expense and the only reasonable, responsible, proportional alternative to DP is LWOP for dangerous, violent offenders who would otherwise qualify for the DP due to the inhumanity of the offence commited then the DP is less expensive in the long run and therefor a benefit.

2. Stand by my initial rebuttal. In 2007 there were 16,929 murders in the US and 42 legal executions. Both numbers have seen a steady decline over the past 10 years. Deterrence?

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6792007.pdf



http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Cri me/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=24

In 2008 the rate of intimate partner victimizations for females was 4.3 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older. The equivalent rate of intimate partner violence against males was 0.8 victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older.
The rate of intimate partner violence against females declined 53% between 1993 and 2008, from 9.4 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older to 4.3 per 1,000. Against males, the rate declined 54%, from 1.8 victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older to 0.8 per 1,000.
Between 1993 and 2007 the overall rate of female homicides fell 43% from 4.18 to 2.38 homicides per 100,000 female U.S. residents.

3. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say here?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Of persons under sentence of death in 2007:
-- 1,804 were white
-- 1,345 were black
-- 26 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 10 were of unknown race.

Are dangerous, violent blacks and whites just killing whites and only convicted for killing whites?

4. Stand by my original rebuttal to include that when we prove respect for each and every innocent life by holding those who take innocent life without cause responsible for their actions by imposing/executing holding violent, dangerous individuals accountable for their lack of respect for life more people will understand to respect their actions and the responsibility for the consequences when they don't.

On the issue of mental illness and/or mental retardation. Every defense lawyer has his "client" go through rigorous mental status exams. In fact a judge does not even have authority over the conclusions of those exams to proceed through trial without them. In some cases no less than a dozen experts are called to examine and or review procedures and results of exams. No case is put forward for death unless the offender is qualified by reason of capacity to understand charges, the serious of the offence and that he may be put to death if found guilty and so sentenced. This is not an arbitrary process confirmed by qualified individuals who we would otherwise trust with less serious issues than taking someones life. To believe otherwise is just cynicism.

When a person presents an argument without using scholarship and common reason but by "emotionalism" and semantic abuse then the merit of that argument is diminished. I don't like calling any argument "straw man" unless it includes "Logical Fallacies".

Asking the question "murder, do you always oppose it" then to equate a legal term with the legal right of self defense and protection of life to include accountability for lack of respect for life by directly engaging in murder rather than opposing it from the onset is fallacious. Of course I oppose murder and the murderer. That is logical.

During the course of my research for my posts I read of a man who kidnapped, raped and killed a 10 year old boy, was caught and sentenced to 10 years in prison. a few years later he did the same to a 8 year old boy. I thought very hard if I want this man dead out of revenge and no matter how hard I tried to equate my feelings with revenge all I kept coming up with was "disgust", even now thinking about it I am filled with disgust and anger. I am a "human being". I lose things from time to time. Most of the things I've lost from time to time, from anger, to my dignity, to my wedding ring, I have been able to shrug off to experience. Be just a bit more careful with the things I care about. Two little boys, one of which could have been saved had we been just a bit more careful. I had a friend when I was eleven who was raped and tossed from the roof of a six story building. Revenge, I'm just f**king sad. How much revenge can an eleven year old inflict?

All of the things I have presented in support of capital punishment I whole heartily believe and support. But, most of all there is evil in this world which disguises itself in human form and no matter what anyone thinks when it is revealed by the commission of disgusting, heinous, inhuman acts then let us remove the demon from its human shell. The same shell most of us carry with respect, dignity and love. I don't want my humanity to be even remotely equated with these dangerous human hating scum. Let them be gone from this world, the sooner the better. Call me if you need someone to pull the switch. I don't care if you call me a sadistic, pleasure seeking death monger. Compared to some of the things these animals do I'll wear that distinction with pride.

I still don't see how killing a killer benefits the family of the victims (or anyone).

Well I am just going to say that after all the whining about the the death penalty is said and done no one will be able to anything about the law. Not in this country (US) anyway. Since, as long as there is murder there will be justice. And, since capital punishment was reinstated after having been "temporarily" abolished to no good end things have been going alone the way expected and for the reasons expected. You see the first time some rabid piece of humanity kidnaps, rapes and murders some mothers child every mother with the ability to hold a bullhorn to her lips will be crying for justice, and regardless what some Utopianist dreams up to say against it justice will be done. Whether it is for a deterrent, reconciliation or just plain old fashioned revenge. You don't have to understand it or even want it since in the long run death, no matter how it comes, it comes. That is the reason why the Death Penalty is a viable option in justice. I could see the complaints if death just wasn't a natural course of being. It seems that the ones with the least regard for it fear the most. Listen to yourselves, "No one deserves to die no matter what they do". Hate to crush anyones spirits but that is just what the human body is meant to do, "die without reason" and sometimes death comes even before someone gets a handle on living, just when things start getting good. Remarkable, really when you think about it, why would someone want to end another persons life if they knew they could get away with it?

Whether anyone thinks they deserve it or not.

I still don't see how killing a killer benefits the family of the victims (or anyone).

That's where the human equation comes in, some families are unable to revert back to normal life without some sort of closure.

I am not saying this justifies killing the offender but it will most certainly benefit relatives of a victim by making them able to live "normal" lives again.

Well, Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). So if murder, merely means the killing of another human "unlawfully", then by all means it is plausible where I would see "murder" as morally permissible, depending on what the "law" actually is. I am very much a liberal on the euthasia front for example. Legality does not entail morality, hell, witch burnings used to be legal!

That's where the human equation comes in, some families are unable to revert back to normal life without some sort of closure.

Maybe so, but it seems unreasonable. What if the family of a murder victim said they needed a palace made of solid gold in order to feel emotionally capable of returning to normal life? Would we be obliged to fulfil their insane request? It would be offensive to a reasonable person to do so. Similarly, having someone killed for their emotional wellbeing seems insane to me. If they can't return to normal life without having someone killed, what kind of people are they?

Juice said, "As part of the social contract no one has the right to deprive another person of their right to life and when such violations occur with the intent to disregard rehabilitation and/or violate the social contract then that person has accepted as part of the social justice any and all ensuing judgments to remedy the act as part of the rights of victim survivors including society itself."

AND

"How do we show respect for human life by defending those who have proven to have no respect for human life?"


Juice -

(deep exhale) We show respect to human life by not destroying it regardless of anything, including past, present, or future sins.

NO ONE has the right to deprive a person of their right to life. Not the guilty, the innocent, the defender, the state, the victims' families. No one.

YOU have no respect for human life. You cherish only the innocent (and not even then because you occasionally execute innocent men by supporting the death penalty).

If you truly valued human life and not just the innocent, you would cherish the life and possible contributions of the guilty as well.

You say that the only way that the criminal who committed an egregious act can repay society is by dying. Nonsense. He can be closely supervised as he picks up trash on the freeway and things of this nature. If we were more inclined to give a damn about HUMAN LIFE we would seek to find ways in which he could really pay back society (or at least come closer to paying us back than lack of existence could ever do).

So, all pedophiles go to Heaven, huh? Repentant or not. Second chances in the afterlife. What if you're wrong? What if he burns in Hell because you chose not to afford him a natural death? What if he merely blinks out of existence upon death and therefore helps no one? You are depriving him and HUMAN LIFE in general of as much as he deprived by killing.

I thank you for explaning your side of the issue as I have been completely perplexed at how a fellow follower of Christ could possibly say that MURDER is what Jesus Christ and God truly want from us. Not forgiveness, mercy, compassion... but MURDER. I thank you for clearing it up on behalf of those who could not formulate a response. BUT IT'S F*CKING BULLSH*T and when you and your loved ones are strapped to that very same chair - whether guilty or innocent or pointing a gun at me and my loved ones - I and Christ will love and forgive you and spare you the ridiculous wrath that you are so turned on by.

I will love, forgive, and be forever merciful to you even in the midst of my rage.

P.S. - You said that murdering the guilty is not cruel and unusual but that raping a rapist is. As someone who has been sexually assaulted as a child, I can most assuredly tell you that I'd rather be raped then killed because even a scarred life is worth living. I can break through my scars and better myself and the world. And I will; even though the likes of you tempt me so much to killkillkillkillkillkillkillkill.

I AM THE GUILTY ONE. The one who deserves death by your hands for my ergregious crimes.
But alas, I AM REDEEMED!

HP-The fact that you can display or warrant rage for yourself to the extent that even while writing where you have the opportunity to rehash and contemplate your words proves just how precarious, unstable and undependable reasoning truly is.

I don't know if you guys simply don't have a sense of fairplay or the concept of morality has deteriorated to the point of pure impracticality. I am consistent. A person who murders has violated a moral imperative and has demonstrated no concern for moral value and therefor forfeits his rights, in some circumstances when the crime is of such a nature that it goes beyond basic human comprehension or they are repeat offenders.

Some suggest rehabilitation until the murderer "displays" a degree of remorse or promise of abstinence and I don't believe they realize how nonsensical that sounds since how does one make that determination unless someone also contemplates the possibility of failure and those possible consequences?

For the sake of argument as a Christian I am prepared to "DIE" at any moment. Heaven is not a guarantee to anyone, except the thief on the cross next to Christ. I will be judged just the same as any murderer, rapist, Pope or nonbeliever and will not pretend that I have some special insight into Gods ultimate plan for me. I just live as best I can with Christ, as should everyone so that way no one murders, rapes or steals. No one has a natural death! Death is the product of sin. Life is the promise of salvation.

You have to understand that we are all sinners. It is not the person who is judged, it is the act that is judged.

Not trying to preach here, just clarifying misconceptions.

The only new Covenant Jesus (God) made with man was to open salvation up to all nations and men, in effect saying that all men should live according to the rules of God. Once again, not preaching, just clarifying an obvious misconception.

Do not tell me what I do not value HP, I can pretty much guarantee that I value life, above my own and I make no judgments on any living soul until that person commits an act against humanity requiring scrutiny under the law.

If we do not take action against those who commit heinous offences against humanity we in effect allow the murder of innocents. We support the actions of those who place no value on human life.

I suggest that we consider the victims. I refer to eight year old Carry Ann Medlin who repeated "Jesus Loves You, Jesus Loves You" over and over to her assailant as he raped her, and before he silenced her young forgiving life forever.

That's where the human equation comes in, some families are unable to revert back to normal life without some sort of closure.

Maybe so, but it seems unreasonable. What if the family of a murder victim said they needed a palace made of solid gold in order to feel emotionally capable of returning to normal life?

And what is the difference between a castle of solid gold or millions of dollars paid for compensation?

Would we be obliged to fulfil their insane request? It would be offensive to a reasonable person to do so.

Families of victims are often "awarded" with huge sums of money, if that's insane you have beef with the judicial system.

Similarly, having someone killed for their emotional wellbeing seems insane to me.

Reason and emotion don't mix well, if you expect all of society to be reasonable above any level of emotion than we would not have a discussion about murder.

I can perfectly understand why killing an offender doesn't make sense to you, I can sympathize with families of victims for wanting it but I cannot support it either.

If they can't return to normal life without having someone killed, what kind of people are they?

The ones that feel that Justice is served by taking a life for a life.

Juice,

Since we are all sinners in your eyes, how is it that you cannot be at peace with the thought that in the end God will do the judging?