 
|
cordero7245
 |
yes, that's his punishment for taking someone's life |
|
GLH (male 48 UK)
|
Yes - the crime was committed not only against the victim and his family but against society as a whole. Therefore society has a right to punish according to the law irrespective of the opinions of the victim's family and friends.
This also serves to protect those members of society whose families are more inclined to forgive - otherwise people from strongly religious (e.g. Christian) families who believe in forgiveness might become greater targets for violent crime because the killers will think that if caught they have a greater chance of avoiding execution. |
|
The JZA
|
The murderer should still be imprisoned or somehow made harmless, because even the forgiven can still possibly be dangerous to society. |
|
tomy
 |
Once the person takes the life of another, im afraid then its up to the law what should be done with him. Not the family. Pope john paul forgave the man who tried to kill him but yet, the man was still jailed for the rest of his life. |
|
cyclops
 |
Yes, forgiveness and paying for your crime are separate.
I can forgive you, and still expect you to pay for your crime. |
|
chanajane3
|
Forgiveness is a moral issue. If the family can find forgiveness in their hearts that is great and they are probably in the grace of God. However, execution is a legal issue which rarely takes God into account. The law is binding but I believe that at the time of trial the family can give a recommendation that the person not be executed. I think that some judges take that into consideration more than others. Also the victims family can also speak to the prosecutor and ask that he not seek the death penalty. Once again some prosecutors take these recommendations more than others. |
|
☺
 |
yes if thats what the sentence was |
|
Toosense
 |
Of course. If the evidence is solid. The sooner the better. |
|
theooldman
 |
Personally I am against killing by the state, but would not object to the taking of a life by the one being attacked.
Thats not the question but is an example of why I try to not be biased ond cannot be called pacifist.
I disagree with most when they say the murder was against society, that is a war declared by one society upon another and in that case the agrieved society, if they win does, indeed have a right to demand retribution.
The problem is they sue for the damage done to thier people but the money goes to the state not the people directly.
Such is the case when a murder takes place in United States, the crime is not against the person, but the state, the state can take all gains of criminal not just those commited in the crime, ala as in drug siezures and organized crime ring persons wealth for its own use.
the agrieved indiviual is left trying to bring suit for damages in a civil case when the one who commited the crime is now penniless and in casees of murder now ded by the states hands
The state to alleviate this sets up crime victims funds but these are from a tax base, such as luxury or hotel motel funds and penalizes all society to pay for victim relief.
Next US society says you can take a mans life in self and familys defence, but not his wealth for taking yours or one of familys life.
Joe neighbor has not lost life or limb has to pay for your relief, and then the state has to kill, which you and your neighbor pay for.
We in this country have been griping about no family loyalty, and turn around and give up what the major responsability of family is ,keeping ones family a viable unit, instilled with its parentage beliefs.
If a family can forgive a man, does not mean they forget the lost loved one, not does it mean they do not see a need for punishment by the state but in the familys interest. Revenge by murder and then having to have someone else do it for you long after the actual crime took place is not family revenge and the penalty for the deed should be decided by the agrieved, as in murder, life or death but also a means to be payed in monetary as allowable. Here may raise some hackles but the Islamic way for crimes against family, where penalty is decided by family makes more sense than our present process.
Justice is supposedly towards those who are harmed, but the sate can incarcerate an individual and the harm can no longer threaten anyone .
The threat has been removed and then you kill the threat.
The right of jury has been eroded by this mentality of the state determining punsihment, it used to be a jury member had the right to question both the accused and the agrieved and they were the ones who decided on the type and amount of punishment, and not the judge, recieved.
Some say the law, well read what Jefferson said about laws followed to strictly. |
|
peachiepie
 |
What would that have to do with the law? The law is the law! |
|
thetravelinggardener
|
Families of victims should have no say in a criminal case. The victim was a citizen of the State and only the State or its duly appointed officers should ahave any power to execute or jail the criminal |
|
FireBug
|
I think they should be executed. But if they get life, then I think they should be tattooed across the for head, of what they did, so if they escape then they can't hide. Once a criminal, always a criminal. |
|
MrKnow_All
|
He should be executed,no questions asked.The family has no right to forgive?Only the "victim"can forgive,in case he is alive.The murderer can get no sympathy from any quarters,since he has committed a crime.He cannot undo what he has done.His acts are not only against any individual but also against society.He should be positively executed. |
|
shawnn
|
Yes,a life for a life.The problem with the death penalty is not the death it's the cost.I don't think a rope and a Gallo would be so expensive.We spend a lot of money just to catch and convict them.Once that's done hang them and bury them. |
|
cold_fearrrr
|
Sure, what do the victim's family have to do with it? He murdered and in my state only those deemed to have committed a hienous crime and to be a threat to society are excuted. I have zero sympathy for any murderer. |
|
neo
|
yes thants what the law says in us. |
|
.
|
face up to your actions. take responsibility. you don't know if the victim would have forgiven the murderer |
|
?
|
The input from the family, such as forgiveness, should have been taken into account before the sentencing of a murderer.
So the answer would be yes the execution should be done. |
|
elizabeth_davis28
|
that is a hard question,my personal belief,I don't believe in execution ,get the person off the street ,let him sit and think about what he or she did,if God can forget all the mess we get ourselves in we can forgive one another |
|
Enchanted
|
Legally yes because the sentence has been passed down by a jury of his/her peers. Ethically? No. |
|
Guncrazy
|
Yes. Forgiveness of an act does not mean absolution from the consequences of that act. Murder is not only an offense against the family of the victim, but against society at large. Society, then, has not only the right, but the obligation, to punish the murderer. |
|
david1957
|
Although the family of the victim is a secondary victim, that is they too suffered for the crime of the murderer. Society as a whole is also a third ranked victim as the primary victim's life was cut short and no one can predict what influence that person may or may not have had on the world so therefore all of society is also a victim whenever there is a murder.
Murder is also a crime against society. The punishment should not only be left to the family of the victim to decide the level of punishment.
In the US, some states have allowed Executions for the crime of murder as a deterent to others committing the same crime.
Just like in the case of imprisonment, the threat of punishment is meant to cause a person to think before acting. Therefore, if the punishment is to be executed, hopefully someone would think twice before committing the act of murder. |
|
Swine
|
on the subject of killing him for what he has done the family's opinion doesn't matter. the question of concern there is "Is he willing and capable of doing it again and if so, is there any other way of stopping him?". |
|
leafyqueen
|
if he's been found guilty and sentenced to die, then yes. makes no difference to the law who forgives a murderer. the fact is they broke the law. and these days they have to have really done some bad shi*t or they wouldn't actually be put to death. (they'd sit on death row for 80 years.)
and just because someone forgives them does not mean they wouldn't slaughter more people. |
|
Dr Universe
|
Yes he or she should be because they killed someone. |
|
duc602
|
yep!! |
|
help:)
|
I think so only it depends on the judge and jury |
|
Ledge
|
Nope. If we're supposed to be a democracy, then we need to give the power back to the people. |
|
saxman357
 |
Yes. Even if the victim's family has forgiven the murderer, the victim himself doesn't have the opportunity to make that choice. |
|
Lucas V
|
He shouldn't be executed to begin with. Don't commit the crime for which you punish someone for. Execution is like saying, well if he smokes pot and goes to jail, maybe all the police can smoke pot just to spite him. Its just plain stupid. Instead put him in solitary confinement for life. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
