It was not solely the "virtue" of the victim. But that virtue, not being a party to the actions and the callous disregard of the "virtue of life" by the offender.

Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all.

My own view is that calls for the death penalty are, by and large, posturing, and if some tyrant suddenly siezed power and ordered that anyone convicted of murder should be put to death immediately, then theirs would be among the howls of protest that would be heard. People say, glibly, "I would be willing to flip the switch/throw the lever/stick the needle in," but, frankly, I don't believe it, and it would prove nothing if I did. I suggest that very few of us have the bottle to do that kind of thing, because taking a life is such an enormous thing for most people to do. OK - some of us have it, people who place but a small value on life, people with little perception of the difference between right and wrong, or people who feel that a clear demonstration must be made of what the consequences will be for transgressing the law: an example must be made. If you think you could do it, think again. If you still think you could do it, consider seeking help.

A life for a life is such a trite phrase, trotted out by many to avoid the need to justify capital punishment. It is a principle applicable to an ancient society, an ancient way of life, when justice was primitive and less than even-handed. If we're calling upon historical precedent, why is that any better than the Scandinavian custom whereby the victim's relatives could make the killer pay compensation for the loss they had suffered. Murder was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I like to think we're much better than that in this day and age. I'm not adovcating that we turn the other cheek in murder cases, but I also do not think that punishment has to be any more severe than is necessary to protect society. I accept that, in some cases, the only way this can be done is to remove an offender from society competely and permanently, but there are other ways of doing that instead of killing him.