i think the victoms family should decide wether or not killer is put to death , and if so , the method of exicution , take itchy and scratchy from the simpsons for example , itchy covers scratchy in BBQ sauce , and opens a box of flesh eating ants !
Chuck Bowling wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:23 AM, [email protected] < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Why should we not? > > > > Why should we not what? > > > > Should we instead make our selfs guilty of the same behaviour that > > seems universal reprehensabile? Should we then sink to that level > > ourselves? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. > > > > My original point was that life is cheap. We don't kill because it's right > or wrong. We kill for expediency. > > > > The point is to maintian that moral superiority. If a man steals from > > me, can I then steal from him? Wouldn't that make me also a theif? > > > > Personally I don't claim any kind of superiority - moral or otherwise. If > somebody steals from me I'll try to steal back my property and possibly > anything else that happens to be lying around. I may even give the guy a > punch in the nose on the way out the door. If you want to call me a thief > for it go ahead. > > > > revenge killings as we know only lead to further revenge killings. We > > have here in the UK a growing youth gang problem, with kids killing > > other kids for slights imagined or otherwise, and then in turn the > > other gang of kids killing members of the ther other gang. Is that > > right, it is the correct behaviour? > > > > This just leads into the whole argument - is war right or wrong. Is it wrong > for a street gang to retaliate when it's territory is breached by a rival > gang? If no then why is it right for nations to do the same thing? > > > > Killing a killer makes no logical sense. > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > It removes a threat from society. > It frees up resources needed to protect the society from that killer. > It provides a deterrent against other killings.
