Justification doesn't change right and wrong. Just like the murder may have justified his homicidal acts. It's the same reason he's being punished.
"Right" and "Wrong" have always been and will always be subjective qualities. What is important is that MINE is ALWAYS right for ME. The difference is that HE was wrong and I was right. Besides, his justification was neither legally nor psychologically sound, whereas mine was. And of course, the most important rule of all - HE started it.
Imagine a murder thinking the same thing. The mentally unsound should be put to death? rather then punished?
I had abstained from voting because I would condone the death penalty for certain crimes. But because we still have a fallible system I must vote against it. Nothing can justify us as a society taking the life of an innocent man (or woman) because of an imperfect system. This seems to be something that the pro death penalty people have the blinders up about or simply look at it like a statistic. But even with our modern advances in science there is still negligence and human error and prosecutors that look at their job as win-lose rather than smiting the guilty or absolving the innocent.
No blinkers RJ. I said only where proof is beyond doubt, ie - caught on film, 100's of witnesses, etc, etc... I also said I have misgivings about the fallilbility of the system. I just was trying to be honest and admit that in certain cases I think an exception should be made, finish it, let victims families find some closure. In Australia theres a mass murderer by the name of Martyn Bryant, he is the sort of example I have no problem with seeing done away with. If you can stomach the full account, heres the wiki link... http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...qIC4CQ&usg=AFQjCNF0irV0QGm2K_OdMwUQ2pg6AiDiaA
That's a commonly-encountered argument against capital punishment. All I'll say is this - I think it's better to execute the occasional (and it would probably not be "occasional" - more like bordering on "rare") innocent person, than to run the risk of a proven animal getting out of a life sentence because he retained some slick shyster who found a loophole. THAT happens far more frequently than innocents dying. The justification is saving even MORE innocents. It's just a matter of running the numbers. And yes, if it so happened that way, I'd gladly be an innocent as well. Well, maybe not exactly gladly, but my spirit would understand.
