methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
I share your sentiment, but when I read the article and think about it, that murderer killed not one, but two innocent people. I think those two victims were in different cases and time frames. If so, if he was executed earlier for the first murder, the result of dishes... I mean deaths, would have been one innocent and one murderer instead of two innocents. If I get to choose, I'd choose the former scenario. I don't think it is good to keep the murderer alive and give him an opportunity to murder a third innocent person (let alone the possibility of it being someone we love, God forbid) just like he had one with the second victim.
No, I don't like execution, but I think it has to be there as very last resort option.
Dunno, I could be wrong in my analysis. I just care for the innocent more than I do murderers. Any thoughts?
If you put the guy in prison after the first murder, you'd have the same result, only now there's just 1 dead person instead of 3.
To me, executing someone puts you at the same level as them. Even lower because while just as cold and calculated, you don't have the excuse of poor upbringing or mental health etc. What sane person thinks that sweeping a problem like murder under the rug via execution is going to prevent more crimes? At least, while they're alive and well in prison you have a chance to communicate with them, to figure out where we're going wrong in society to make people even imagine murder is a good idea. Kill them, and you lose another chance to solve the problem in society at large and prevent others from making the same mistakes