Death sentence..., What happens to those who kill killers? Options

[Rikkiismyname]

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.

[Olive]

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.

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?

[*mipadi*]

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?

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.

[Olive]

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.

[*mipadi*]

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.