<p>And yet, what you said is still your belief… The reality is that moral judgments can never be anything except subjective. Your morals are not my morals are not someone else’s…</p>
<p>So… This guys worth or lack thereof has not changed merely by your statement because any judgment of his worth is inherently subjective. You may view him as unworthy and I may or may not disagree but neither your view nor mine is reality. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the caveat that I’m not judging whether he should or shouldn’t die or your stance on it as I personally have no problem with putting people to death, perhaps we should stick to one agreed upon method of communication… English.</p>
<p>Revenge: The action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for a wrong suffered at their hands. The death penalty fits that bill.</p>
<p>So, are all morals equally valid? Was it wrong for him to murder this child? I mean, his morals may just not be yours, in which case, well, whatever, right? For you to say that it was wrong for him to murder implies that you DO make value judgments on various sets of morals.</p>
<p>There are various different justifications for criminal penalties. They include:
Rehabilitation (probably not in the cards for this guy).
Deterrence for the individual (if he’s in jail, he can’t commit more crimes)
Deterrence for other people.
Restitution (impossible in this case)
Retribution/revenge/punishment</p>
<p>Most of us probably believe in all of these, more or less, depending on the crime. But note that they differ in nature, and the arguments for and against them differ, too. If you’re talking about rehabilitation or deterrence, you tend to discuss whether the particular penalty is effective or not. If you’re talking about retribution, you discuss whether it is deserved or justified. These ideas always get tangled up when you’re talking about the death penalty–with more besides, such as whether it’s prudent to allow the government life and death power over anybody.</p>
<p>I didn’t create the definition for revenge…</p>
<p>I mean, if you really want to get deep into it, many would say you wanting him to die is immoral regardless of who he killed or why. Are they wrong? Are they right?</p>
<p>If you are strong enough to desire a man’s death you should be strong enough to admit what motivates that desire… Revenge and Anger.</p>
<p>If someone killed my child you can be sure that my anger would lead me to commit a horribly depraved act of vengeance… Out of purely selfish reasons. Shrug. It’s not hard to admit…</p>
<p>Well, then call it punishment. I’m fine with punishing brutal murderers (for which there is no doubt that they committed the crime) with being murdered themselves. Revenge suggests a blood-thirstiness, and I’m not blood-thirsty about it.</p>
<p>I’m not angry. This man didn’t personally affect me or my loved ones. I just don’t think he’s worthy of taking up space on this planet anymore after such an act. That’s all.</p>
<p>I think it’s okay to want revenge on this terrible person, to want to remove him from society as retribution for the suffering he has caused, while still recognizing that, morally, the punishment should be revokable if circumstances should change one day.</p>
<p>I’m talking about the murderer in the news, not IndianParent. That may not have been clear from the context.</p>
<p>Here’s a thought experiment: what if the state had a program that said a person condemned to death wouldn’t be executed as long as private donations were sufficient to fund the full cost of his incarceration? How many death penalty opponents would contribute?</p>
<p>I hope IP, like everyone else on this board, lives a long and healthy life!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d still want this guy dead, regardless of whether it doesn’t cost me a dime. I think he’s forfeited any right he ever had to be part of society with this premeditated, horrible act. I recognize that the dp may be more costly than life in prison (with appeals and what-not) and that’s fine.</p>
<p>I would prefer that murderers who do things so absolutely heinous, such as decapitating their own child end up in a slant cell prison cell, high atop a 600 foot windowless cliff - a la “Game of Thrones”. They can eat their gruel and when they get tired of living, hurl themselves off it. </p>
<p>Much cheaper for the taxpayers. </p>
<p>There are those that can be rehabilitated, and those people can stay in a traditional correctional facility. Sadly, the man that committed this crime - and confessed to it - are not in that category. </p>
<p>I do not believe every life is equal. Charles Manson’s life is not equal to the child who suffered this heinous torture and murder at the hands of his own father.</p>