Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Apr 2008 08:21 UTC, submitted by Jason Slack
Permalink for comment 312021
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-11-11
You know that's not what I am asking. Here, I'll repeat the full question for you: "...could you please explain the fundamental difference between "state-sponsored murder" and "state-sponsored imprisonment" in the framework of everyone being equal and no person having the right to decide over another person's freedom."
Of course I can see the difference between the two forms of punishment. What I can't see is why it violates "unconditional equality" principles to execute a person, but it doesn't violate it to imprison him.
...and a death sentence will fulfill this purpose perfectly, while imprisonment, on top of being costly and unfair to relatives of victims, carrier an inherent risk of criminal escaping and murdering again.
How is that the best way? The murderer will still enjoy life to some extend at the considerable expense to the society. There is always a risk him escaping. How is that the best?
Financial compensation to victims' families is an altogether different subject, although it would be much easier to implement if no money was spent on caring for the murderer.
Physiologically - yes, but so what? Mentally - I don't think so, but even if he is, again, so what? A human can not be executed simply because he is a human? Sounds pretty fundamentalistic to me.
I am sorry that you feel that way as I have no reason to resort to populism since I am not here on a political campaign. I am simply explaining my personal views on the subject in the most concise and logical manner I can.