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.
After being convicted to death by a jury of his/her peers, the death application can only be applied by a representative of the victim of the crime. The power should then be given to the victims family to ultimately pull the handle, or release the poison into the guiltys' body. Is this practical?
No it's not practical. By doing so you would change the legal system from 'The State' vs. XXX' to 'XX vs. YY'. By doing so, you would remove a "wall" between the accused and the legal system (Police, DA/Judges, State legislatures) and civilians.
Pulling the switch/pushing the plunger then becomes murder. So, after administering "justice", one would have to be arrested immediately afterwards.
After being convicted to death by a jury of his/her peers, the death application can only be applied by a representative of the victim of the crime. The power should then be given to the victims family to ultimately pull the handle, or release the poison into the guiltys' body. Is this practical?
No. There has to be a legal process in the administration of the death penalty. What's to stop a victim's family member from torturing when it comes time to administer the death penalty?
After being convicted to death by a jury of his/her peers, the death application can only be applied by a representative of the victim of the crime. The power should then be given to the victims family to ultimately pull the handle, or release the poison into the guiltys' body. Is this practical?
That would be awful. Why would any family member want to do that. They would be murdering someone.
I have no moral qualms with the death penalty, I just think that because nothing is perfect we shouldn't use it. You can reverse a jail sentence, you can even give someone compensation for putting him in the clink, but once you pull the trigger that life is gone.
After being convicted to death by a jury of his/her peers, the death application can only be applied by a representative of the victim of the crime. The power should then be given to the victims family to ultimately pull the handle, or release the poison into the guiltys' body. Is this practical?
Not only is that not practical, but it is also a form of vengeance and we don't need that crap.
It's wrong to say that such an idea is impractical; not only is it not impractical, but it is actually practiced in some cases in various countries (all Islamic as far as I know.) Not only do family members sometimes participate in or even carry out the execution of the sentence, but they also sometimes may commute it.
The question is not whether we could do it (i.e., practicality) but whether we want to face the implications of abandoning the whole modern exercise in government, and having capital crimes possibly turned into partial private vendettas rather than a concern of a (theoretically) impartial state representing all the citizens. Although it seems to me that the more libertarian one is, the fewer objections one could reasonably offer to such a policy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
