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.

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.