• Yes. There are many crimes for which death is the only answer. If the person valued his life so much he wouldn't be sentenced to death.
  • Well, isn't the act of murder or even suicide man doing just that?
  • I do not believe so.
  • Man himself made it his right and there was no one else to stop him.
  • in my country court has right of capital punishment.
  • Yes there are some acts a person can commit where they give up their rights as a human being.
  • gonna have to say yes to this one
  • No, that responsibility should be in the hands of hamsters and gerbils.
  • Part of living in a society is obeying certain moral rules. When you become a serious danger to that society, the other members have the right to eleminate the threat to the whole. You see it in Lion packs all the time. If one lion is endangering the pride, the male lions kill it off. :)
  • I don't know if you're aware, but we are the species with the advanced cortex, its only us on the planet. There's no deity commanding us, we make our own rules.
  • A being who has been sentenced to death, if indeed "guilty as charged," is no longer "human," IMHO. +5
  • It is man himself who decides what is right and wrong, therefore if man decides he has the right then he does, if not then he doesn't.
  • That is a very interesting question. Personally I consider myself to be a moral-relativist, so I do not believe there is any true universal definition of wrong or right. This applies to both the executioner, and the condemned. Basically this means that people should be free to do whatever they choose, either to kill in the name of the state, or in the name of whatever they choose. And yet I am opposed to the death penalty. Why? Because it is hypocritical. If the executioner is condemning the act of murder, then why should he himself be exempt from such a standard? Simply because he represents the state, which in it self has no greater authority than "might is right" Aside from these philosophical reasons, there is much literature available that proves that the death penalty is infective at detouring violent crimes. In fact the entire American penal system is a highly infective unit. Where do you find the lowest levels of repeat offenders in the world? In places like Norway, where the maximum penalty under law is something like 14 years imprisonment , and no death penalty. Over there they actually work at rehabilitating prisoners, instead of just caging them. Oh well. I think I have rambled on for long enough :-)
  • I don't know that I would consider it a "right", but judges definitely have the authority to do so because we as a society have deemed it appropriate to give them this authority.
  • He doesn't in most civilised countries.
  • ... depends on which point of view you look from ... Religiously, there should not even be a court or police, because God will supposedly judge everyone and give proper punishment to fit any transgression. Morally and ethically, killing a murderer is hypocritical. ("you kill one of ours and we will kill you right back") An eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth would leave us all blindly gumming in misery. But from the point of view of a democratic society, in which the majority of the population are in favour of severe penalties as a crime deterrent, then the option of death penalties becomes the right of the people's elected law makers who represent the will of the people, and the killing of criminals becomes a right & a responsibility of the designated executioner.
  • I also don't believe so. How can society assume the moral high ground if it behaves the same as the criminal?

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy