Do you think someone who commits murder should get life without parole, or get the death penalty?

Comments

• Ok, this is where I get waaayyyy confused. Your argument, as I understand it, is as follows: Human life is inherently valuable; so valuable, that someone who takes another's life (at any stage of development) should receive the worst punishment for a crime. Why would you then advocate ending the perpetrator's life? You justify it by saying the cost of imprisonment is an imposition on "us". So now it seems you're saying that there is a monetary limit on the value of a human life that, once exceeded, justifies ending that life. But if, in fact, your original premise is true then isn't society perpetuating the same crime by ending the life of a human being, via the death penalty? It seems to me that either 1) the value of a human life is absolute, and should be consistently enforced; or 2) life is valued more situationaly, bringing to mind ideas like "quality of life" and "contributions to society". I struggle with attempts to impose "black & white" when the world is filled with "gray".

  • Report
  

  by theredbaron on June 15th, 2007

• once more i wish i could rate comments!

  • Report
  

  by pigeonpower on June 15th, 2007

• Your good thoughts suffice -- at least it lets me know I expressed myself somewhat clearly. :)

  • Report
  

  by theredbaron on June 15th, 2007

• I am not pro or anti abortion, but the one thing that annoys me is that people think that those who are anti abortion should be anti death penalty. There is a big difference between a fetus who has done no harm and a murderer. With that said, abortion is a much more complicated issue than that, but just because someone is pro-life with fetuses doesn't mean they need to be pro-life for adults who make a mental choice to kill an innocent. Big difference.

  • Report
  

  by Donald_W8989 on September 17th, 2011