OK well for those who don't know, When some one is sentenced to the death sentence there has to be at least one person there to kill the Person on death. But if the person being killed is being killed because he killed soem one, shouldn't the person killing the murderer be put to death. And if that happens we will end up killing each other out of existance untill only one person is alive then he had to kill himself. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?


Ok just toclear things up. I don't mean that there shouldn't be a death sentence.

Yes, logically, yes. However, that is a rare occurrence. The security in prisons holding death row murderers is more stringent even than POW camps.

It doesn't happen often.

So you mean that the person who flips the swith to the electric chair or the person who administers the lethal injection is guilty of murder?

Is that what you're trying to say?

Oh, I thought she meant prisoners killing other prisoners.

Whoops -- disregard anything I said.

It depends on what your definition of murder is. If you believe capital punishment is outright murder, then i guess you would view it that way.

chaa there should be deatch sentance. would u awnt soemeon who lives who killed a pregnant women?

You do have a point.
But the person who is killing that person who is in death sentenced shouldn't get killed him/herself. I think that because that person who is killing the death sentenced person is doing something good - keeping the world a little more safer from killers. Murderers kill innocent people. The people who kill the murderers kill guilty people. There's the difference.

Well...from a religious standpoint, isnt justice being served? Why should the ones who are killing the guilty be condemed? even though the justice system isnt perfect and innocent have died, but what right do they have on this planet, and i would rather take death than life in prison.

there is a difference between killing somone and murdering them...look at the definitions.

murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

kill - To put to death

oops!

Well if you were that concerned about it, you could just make a machine that runs off a timer so no one has to flip a switch.

Um, I find this pretty stupid because you're not killing the person for your own reasons, you're killing them because it's the law. Murder is unlawful killing of another person, but if you're given permission to be an executioner by the people who actually put the killer in death sentence, then you're okay.
Like CrackedRearView said, if everyone were so concerned, you might as well waste thousands of dollars making an electronic timer for every prison.

Logically, if you think the executioner deserves to die, then so does the judge who mandated the sentence and the jury who chose to convict with the option of the death penalty.

To even consider that is irrational. Before a person even commits a crime that warrants the death penalty, the laws of this country say that certain crimes may carry a sentence of death. So, it's not like the punishment is retaliatory. It is preset. You do A, you get B. Who cares who facilitates B?

To pull the Ten Commandments argument is faulty also. The Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments is 'murder', not 'kill' as so many people are falsely convinced. Why would a God who ordered His Chosen People into battle say it's not right to kill? I bring up the Ten Commandments because many of our founding fathers used biblical tenets in the process of framing our country's primary documents that established justice and government.

is it right that a person kills someone because that person killed somone else? it's very confusing, i can see both sides to this. but do people rape the rapist? no, i don't think so.

From what I know, you don't get the deathsentence for just murder. You usually get life for murder.

Death sentence is usually for serious crimes like multiple murder/man slaughter. Tourture ect.

I thought this was going to be a "Is the death sentence letting them off easy" deal. But, no, the guy killing isn't doing anything really wrong. People usually do this as a technical selfdefense. For people who are too dangerous to be kept alive, therefore if they are dead your defending lives.

^ He's right. The people doing the killing are doing a justice to the people.

I really hate it when people say this because it's so illogical that it's sickening. Why would anyone want to degrade themselves to rape a child rapist? When a killer is put on death row, at least the murderer gets put to death in the most humane way possible. Is rape ever humane?

If you want to talk about what is right, then let me ask you, is it right that a child rapist/killer gets to live in a place with cable tv and free meals? If that's justice, then this is a pitiful world of illogical idealists. That, or crazy, nonsensical sentimentalists.

LMAO

like my microwave oven..........*ding..*sniff "bagels done?"........"no"...."but the prisoner is!"

;p

I think killing murderers is the best thing in the world. An eye for an eye. Like people have said up there, there's a difference of murder and justice.

Yes! That thing confused me so much because I used to think that. It made no sense because if you killed someone for killing, then your the killer and its a never ending chain of killing. Then again, I think locking someone up for most of their life is wrong too...

Why?

Did you even read what everyone else said? I think CrackedRearView and ikayto pretty much made the point though.

They're killing for a good purpose; for justice. MURDER is something people get punished for. The person flipping the switch shouldn't be punished because they're doing the society good by ridding of someone who's a threat to other people.

I know but I am just saying that is what I thought when I was younger because...long story but I just don't think its right to do it. In my eyes killing someone because they kill is unjusitfyable and sets a bad example. I just don't believe in that because how is it doing society good when you tell people that when something isn't right you just take them out. It just doesn't fit for me



I don't want to sound cruel but people die all the time. Yes it is a sad thing, but what is locking them away for the rest of their life going to do? Ok they won't kill again if they wanted to because they would be locked up, but what would really be accomplished?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Religious or not, everyone should hold that standard. If you hit someone, they have the right to hit you back. If you take something from someone, they should have the right to take something of yours. But since you kill someone, they cant be there to kill you back, so they have a representative. That person acts on there behalf and administers the justice they and their families deserve. Sounds kinda like the American government doesnt it? Everyone has the right to life, and when you infringe on someones rights, ur rights should be infringed on. Somebody once said "My right to swing my fist ends where another mans nose begins." If somebody starts kickin ur ass, you have every right to kick their ass back. If you're being attacked on the streets and you feel your life is threatened, you kill them, you can plead self defense. If you get killed, the executioner acts like the lawyer, pleading self defense and getting justice. Im all for the death penalty.

this is a good topic, i never thought about what happens to the person that kills the killers! its quite krazy! why are u putting someone in prison for killing someone, but then u have someone kill the killer. thats weird!

Death sentence should be abolished. Sure, i want a murderer to be killed but still sometimes things go wrong. What if the the "murderer" wasn't really the murderer, so there goes an innocent life. A criminal should be put to jail for the rest of his/her life. Tortured or whatever, but not "killed". Why kill? It's useless.

^Killing isn't really useless...it helps lower overpopulation (as cruel as it sounds)

The executioners are paid to kill. No one will have to kill them. Besides, nowadays, it's the electric chair...

well if we start killing the person that killed the killer wouldn't it be a never ending chain of killing?

That IS cruel. I can't imagine how you could say that.

No, that makes no sense. An executioner killing a convicted murderer is legal; the act is a justified killing, similar to a soldier killing another soldier in combat. One can certainly make arguments as to whether the death penalty should be a part of a legal system or not, but one cannot make the argument that an executioner should be killed because he killed a convict with a death sentence.

yes i know, but i was refering to this

I think the person killing the murderer has a license to kill, or something.

i think the shooting party is better.

this is wen at least 5 people holds a gun, but only 1 of the has the bullet. non of htem knows which gun has the bullet. but wen they shoot the person, the guns w/o bullets sounds the same as the ones with bullets. but the person thats really shooting the person would feel a lot better afterwards because he probably thinks some other person in the party did it.

ooo gosh, thats kinda creepy.

like the other said... executioners have a license to kill...that is the most reasonable way to put it...besides, don't we hang them nowadays or put them on the electric chair?


I am a hypocrite of all standards. I shall bear no grudge on you for saying that for you really spoke the truth.

[quote=andromeda_90,Oct 27 2005, 4:25 PM]
like the other said... executioners have a license to kill...that is the most reasonable way to put it...besides, don't we hang them nowadays or put them on the electric chair?


umm...i dont think we do hangings anymore!

^oh alright but we still do the electric chair

In New Hampshire and Washington, convicts may choose hanging over the default option of lethal injection.

^^ that's interesting, I didn't know that. I thought you guys only did lethal injection.

I find execution sligtly hypocritical, because if the murderer killed multiple people, how many times can he die? And if you are trying to live by an eye for an eye...there would be a never ending chain of death.

Why would he needs to die multiple times when he can die once and not harm anyone else, physically or mentally? I posted about 'an eye for an eye once', but can you explain why there would be a never ending chain of death relevant to our justice system?

i dunt think they should kill cuz the killer should be punished instead of just ending his life. they should make the killer do something that he hates and most. thats what i think. cuz if u get killed for killing someone and the killer who killed the killer killed so he gets killed? its just a friken huge chain.

haha that was kinda confusing lol

One can also claim that the death sentencing is justified based on legal terms. But I fail to see how any act of killing is justified at all. I also do not see the parallel of a prisioner awaiting death, compared to defeat during battle. Is it justified because it is inevitable in the face of revenge among the majority?

i kinda understand that opinion...

i believe in putting the killer in jail for life and have him suffer in solitary confinement without social interaction and let him suffer alone like what they did to the countess

The parallel is only in that both a soldier killing another soldier in war and an executioner killing a prisoner are justified killings under our legal system. Again, the law can be debated, but there is no debate as to whether legally those killings are justified.

The justification of the country's law can not be debated, why? Should our lives be dependant on the written legislation, regardless of its fairness?
With all the war against terrorism going on, people held captive, and little progress towards freedom, it seems there is something wrong with people having too much power, which is either used to protect us or against us.
However I respect your view to not debate this subject, since law only requires obedience and confirmation by the wider majority.

I said exactly the opposite. I said the law itself can be debated; but what is not up for debate is whether an executioner killing a prisoner, under current law, is legal or not.

This was the basis of the debate:

Theoretically, yes. But like all corruption that needs a scapegoat, so does the legal system. And what is written to be justice, does not necessarily mean so.

theres no point in killing people for killing. as long as you keep them from everyone else, we're all good.

First off, a shooting party still results in every one committing murder in my eyes, as they have still had the balls to kill someone, regardless of whether they did or not.

It seems to me this is a very - conservative christian dominated debate. I cannot see how justifying a killing with a killing is in any way supported by christian teaching. Turn the other cheek and all that. Murder is murder is murder. You cannot at any point say that any person has the right to kill, and if you think that we have the right to kill as a punishment, one is not punishing the criminal, we are showing that we are a barbaric and demonic culture that believes in bloody and horrific revenge.
A murderer is scum. Period. They cannot be dissuaged. Period. Lock them away, rehabiliate them, do not release them whatever. They will have a far worse time in prison than in death, and we as humans do not have the moral right to remove another person's life.

Well, I don't think you have to execute someone who murdered somebody. I mean, can't you just stick them in a high security prison for the rest of their life?

all you may disagree but this is the debate forum soo, i don't think if a person kills someone you should put them in the death penalty because it just makes you as much of a bad person for killing the killer.you should put give them life sentences or something just don't put them in the death penalty because you'd be a killer too.