Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkilgore
This thread implies using the death penalty as "revenge", which is no better than the original murder. The death penalty should only be used in cases where the murderer is convicted of a crime so heinous that there is no possibility of that person ever being trusted to live in society.
|
You're correct, there's a fine line between Justice and Revenge, while a logical man will believe Justice is what the rule of the state is, an emotionally charged, revengeful person would agree to having the state execute people in the sale of 'Justice' (which for them is just revenge). One of the classical examples between Justice and Revenge is the murder of Trayvon Murder, I knew hundreds of people who didn't want to wait for a trial and just wanted to see G. Zimmerman executed rather it was by the state or the New Black Panthers. Personally, I never leaned one way or another with the case because in that sense I'm logical, I'll wait for a verdict and the trial. Look at Trayvons mother, she never said "Execute Zimmerman" but instead "Just waitfor trial".
So if I were murdered I'd want Justice, but if the states opinion of Justice is letting the murderer sit behind bars for life is their justice, then I'd want everything pertaining to 'Justice' (really Revenge) taken care of by family. As I said a few posts back, if it was a accident then it's understandable but if someone breaks into my house, stabs me 100 times, and is caught red-handed, they deserve to be executed and a state that says other-wise is only promoting that you can murder people with limited consequences.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
