I have absolutely no problem with violent criminals being permanently removed from the face of the earth, if they are likely to remain violent. No bloodlust or vengeance in it - just get rid of them. However,
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieK
The problem for me is what if there is a wrongful conviction and an innocent life is taken. This has happened in the past as people have received pardons years after their death. State sanctioned murder is never the answer in my opinion. Long sentences of hard labour and life meaning life is the way to go for me.
Had someone murdered one of my loved ones though, my post may be very different
|
This is my issue with it, really. The justice system is FAR from perfect... a million miles from it. It's not a question of "what if" an innocent person was executed, but "when and how many". it would definitely happen if introduced in the same trial-by-jury style as many US states. I remember in RMPS (Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies) at school, learning about a case from when the UK still had the penalty, and a guy was hung for murder and then a few years later, they caught the real killer, who confessed to the crime that other man was hung for. Harrowing stuff. Accounts from the executed man's family, etc...
So yeah. No moral issue with killing people who are likely to kill more innocent people.
Not any and all people convicted of murder - just those likely to reoffend, where their crime appears motiveless or driven by pleasure / cruelty / psychopathy... One off killers, tbh, often have good reasons. I mean, how unjust if a person was to face the death penalty for murdering someone who had abused them for years?
But even with the former, ONLY if the evidence is indisputable. Not "reasonable doubt", no jury required or question of innocence at all, I'm talking about multiple-murderers who have been caught elbow deep in blood. Then, yeah. I have no issue with them being disposed of.