I understand, but what you bolded is in conflict with the concept of "everyone has a right to life" which you are so adament about. It's doesn't matter if you're killing in defense or you're killing in revenge: You are committing the act of killing.....which means that you are taking away that person's right to live.
Only because the alternative would mean that my own right to live would be taken away. If an option is available where everybody can live, great - that's the one to choose. But if
someone's going to die, I'd prefer it to be the attacker and not me.
Yes, but the victim's or their family can have a hand in pursuing a case in either scenario though.
Usually in their capacity as a witness, not because of special status as a victim. If a person is a victim of a crime, their testimony will often be key in putting their attacker away. If the victim doesn't co-operate, the prosecution doesn't have the material to do its job.
I believe we should choose whatever punishment fits the crime, not just simply setting the bar at "the lesser one."
But if two punishments both "fit the crime", then there's no reason to choose the more severe one rather than the lesser one.
You also have to establish whether the 5 years will do any good or have a significant impact on the individual to be a deterrent. Aside from giving the indivual what they deserve, punishment is also ment to be a deterrent for other thinking about commiting the same crime.
When I said "overall" effect, I was trying to capture all consequences of the sentence: general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and whatever other goals the punishment is meant to acheive.
For example, if we started cutting off the hands of thieves, I guarantee that you'd see theft in the U.S. drop down pretty darn quick....Not that I am AT ALL advocating such a thing, nor do I think that is good. I'm just trying to make a point about deterrence. Deterrence is an effective tool and can be "morally correct" if done correctly.
But when it comes to capital punishment, study after study has shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent - it's no more effective than life imprisonment, so if we want to justify its use, we have to look to other reasons.
I understand that, but victims were not the point we were discussing.
Okay... I think things have gotten a bit confused now. What was the point you thought we were discussing? I have a feeling that it's different from the one I thought we were talking about.
You said that in either scenario you didn't think either those individuals (the revenge killer and the cold blooded killer) acted rightly or justly. The victims did not matter it was the the difference of the killers that mattered, which you yourself acknowledged.
No, the victim does matter. IMO, killing someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is a much lesser crime than killing an innocent child... but they're both still crimes.
Only that was not my description of each. Innocence is the key word here and is what you left out. Both are killing for some type of satisfaction, yes. What you forgot to add was that one is killing an innocent person (cold blooded murder) who has commited no crime against their assailant, and one is killing a person guilty of murder (vigilante killing) in response to the killing of an innocent loved one. So no, using my descriptions, they are not the same thing.
In your mind, does the worth of a life change depending on the merits of the person?
There's a recent case in Vancouver that comes to mind:
Robert Pickton was recently convicted of the murder of six women; he's suspected in at least 20 more murders and disappearances. Many of his confirmed and suspected victims were street hookers.
Is it only "cold-blooded murder" when the victim is "innocent"?
Read my previous response in regards to how I think it's a double standard. I recognize a persons right to live until they commit cold blooded murder....all their rights to live get thrown out the window after that, IMO and rightfully so.
Do other rights go out the window as well?
Should a murderer lose his or her right to not be tortured, say?
Perhaps then we shouldn't be using the word "ever" or placing emphasis on it. Something that "we shouldn't ever do" means just that: You never do it, no matter what.
Fine... if it's such an issue for you, then forget I used the word. My position is still the same, though: rights should be maintained in all situations except those where it's impossible to do so, or where allowance of one person's rights would create a denial of other rights.
This goes back to the goal of Capital Punishment: The goal of capital punishment is serving the justice that society has determined someone to deserve. Capital punishment can also saves live despite your claim to the contrary: Capital punishment ensures that this person will not harm anybody again, ever, 0 chance of repeat offenses....something life imprisonment can't guarantee.
No, it can't, because there's some probability of crime attached to having any person running around free.
Capital punishment also provides zero opportunity for sober second thought years or decades after the fact, or the ability of a parole board (who are also appointed by and represent society, and whose determinations reflect society's will just as much as a judge's sentence does) to weigh the facts at hand and make a determination that justice has been served after something less than the prisoner's entire life... or not. If the prisoner is executed, none of this is available.
