I have always supported the death penalty for certain cases. Those who kill randomly, without provocation, who could kill anyone they cross paths with, should be eliminated from society permanently, if for no other reason than that some time down the road they could conceivably convince some bleeding heart that they deserve to be set free. Why take the chance?
On the other hand, some spurned lover who kills his girlfriend is not a general threat to society and should be sentenced to life in prison. Furthermore, allowances should be made to have him perform some form of useful labor to generate revenues, which should then be given to the family of the person he killed. Make some use of him, but keep him confined at the same time.
And there are some cases, like the mother who drowns her children in a fit of post-partum depression, where neither sentence can be considered justice. She is unlikely to be a danger to anyone else, and perhaps should be allowed to apply for parole after a certain period of time.
These are rather simplified cases, but they can be considered guidelines for distributing justice fairly.
Just my opinion.







Reply With Quote