Hello Regular Guy,Regular Guy said:And that is the key Korbel. What purpose should justice serve? And more importantly what purpose should it serve in the case of premeditated murder. The fallout on society of going either route is what we need to determine. If we do away with the concept that taking a life means forfeiture of one's own then what are the consequences first, in practical terms and secondly in terms of ethics and morality. Might be an idea to succinctly state both sides of the argument. Those against the death penalty have a lot to answer for as well as those for it. As far as I am concerned in this debate there is no free ride. I say to all Please and I repeat please spare me all of the fallacies of argument when presenting your case whatever that may be. And from your comment Korbel it looks like we have failed. Not much to show for well over 200 posts eh?
Once this thread got away from the specific case and became a death penalty discussion it was destined to be a purging of individual feelings and opinions with no resolution. Well, everyone needs to vent sometimes. Is this issue resolvable anyway? I think all of us agree that life is truly precious and making anyone pay for taking a life justly automatically creates the conundrum of the true justice in taking the most precious gift in return for the same. I don't think the perfect answer exists...unless one is a religious literalist. But for me, there has just been too much damage done in the name of justifying solutions based on someone's view of...God's Will.
Cheers,
Korbel
Last edited: