Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
What do we do? Ask ourselves what we hope to gain through the death of a murderer, and then ask ourselves if this outweights what we lose through the death of an innocent person who has been wrongly accused and convicted.
Does the death of 1,000 murderers carry more "value" than the death of one innocent person, executed in error? How many murderers do we have to execute to accrue the "price" of one innocent life? Overall, is there any actual "gain" of any kind we obtain through the execution of a murderer?
If so, would you knowingly pull the trigger and blow one innocent person's brains out, in order to get whatever reward you expect to receive by executing one million murderers?
These are not hypothetical questions.
|
Yes they are, because you are missing the point of execution.
It has nothing to do with revenge, payback, even the score or balancing the scale.
When the courts have determined that a person is not, and will not, be allowed back into society because they pose a danger to the population, then they are separated from society permanently. Murdering someone is only one of the reasons to be found a danger to society.
What point would there be to run the risk, or the expense, of keeping this person in prison? They will never be an asset, always a liability.
That was their choice, when they found they couldn't be compatible where they were, they chose to become a problem rather than finding some place they could be compatible.
Discarding liabilities is good practice.