XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: r@eddlewood.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <85f06f0c.0312011153.21ceaed9@posting.google.com>,   
   Marie A.  writes   
      
   >When we don't execute those   
   >who have willfully and premeditatedly taken the life of another, as a   
   >society we make a statement that we value the murderer's life more   
   >than that of his/her victim[s].   
      
   With respect, Marie, have you thought this argument through?   
      
   The victim's life is no longer in the equation once the murder has   
   been committed. The only question is: how do we value the   
   murderer's life?   
      
   I would say that if the murderer is allowed to live, there is the   
   possibility that s/he may change her/his attitudes and behaviour,   
   and become useful citizens. If we kill them, then this clearly cannot   
   happen.   
      
   Now, if we *do* kill them, it will be a wilful and premeditated murder,   
   and by your formula, should end with the execution of someone   
   else. Who? The executioner? The judge? You?   
      
   The Mafia work this way, of course, and so do many primitive   
   societies. But the US is, as far as I know, the only advanced   
   democracy that practices judicial murder.   
      
   Do you think that "God save America" has anything to do with it?   
      
   --   
   ralph   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)