Personally, I do support the death penalty. However, I don't support the way we execute people. It costs more to execute a person than it does to keep them in prison for life, but if we just used a firing squad or some rope, that wouldn't be the case.

The only situations where I don't support the death penalty is in instances like the one a few years back where the man (I can't remember his name) killed his pregnant wife. He's on death row right now, but he doesn't deserve death. He needs to be thrown in a deep, dark hole and allowed to rot.

Also, I think that the punishment for vermin like child molesters needs to be bumped up to either "the hole" or execution.

I am against the death penalties for several reasons.

1. Technology may make us pay later. With the advent of forensics, a good number of people on death row were found innocent, so what will happen with the next advance in forensics?
2. Statistically, it does not act as a deterrent. Therefore, it becomes a form of legal revenge.
3. It is more expensive to put someone to death and give them their right to due process than it is to just keep them in prison for life.
4. There is a subtle bit of racism in the death penalty. For example: A black person is more likely to receive the death penalty if they kill a white person than if they kill another black person.
5. I simply do not trust the government to decide who lives and who dies and how it is done.

The situations I support the death penalty are in cases during war in which the criminal poses a threat if they are allowed to live in prison. These cases fall outside the conventional view of the death penalty however. Such cases are: Treason, espionage, certain war crimes, etc.

So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Any way, you said that it wasn't cost effecient, that's why I suggest that we stop using all that high-tech gear and just use a nice cheap bullet or two.

I would say Bush (OK, maybe not him but at least the people he surrounds himself with) since they purposely lied us into a conflict that has severely weakened the US. Now that's for another thread now, isn't it?



The high cost is mainly due to all the appeals they are entitled to, which is something you cannot cut.

What's not cost effective of the death penalty is the fact that prisoners on death row are there for a long time before their sentence is carried out. Think of how much money it costs to feed them, bathe them, provide basic needs, pay the guards watching their unit etc. The price doesn't just cover the price of the lethal injection dose, but all the costs of keeping them alive as well.

The death penalty as a deterrent to extremely violent crimes is an absolute joke. Any introductory psychology student knows that in order for a punishment or reward to be effective, it needs to be administered immediately after the behavior. Ergo, logically, people given the death penalty should be killed immediately after their conviction. I don't actually believe that this would solve anything, I'm making the point that for anything to be a deterrent to specific behavior, the reward/punishment needs to be associated with it.

Also, a major part of the expense is the cost of the long, drawn-out appeals process. Where a convicted criminal might give up his appeals and just serve the sentence if it's only prison time, virtually every death penalty case is appealed to the maximum extent possible. The lawyers aren't going to be satisfied until it's been to the supreme court, pardon requests have been filed with the governor, pardon requests with the president, etc. So there's a lot of costs beyond just housing the prisoner until execution day.


As for my opinion... in theory, I'm for the death penalty. There are a lot of worthless "people" in our society, who are clearly evil and need to be removed. But in the real world, there are some major problems:

1) Until we become omniscient gods, no justice system is 100% effective. Innocent people are punished (and later freed), sentences are biased, etc. It's the concept of "better to let a hundred guilty people go free than to punish a single innocent". If a person is unfairly punished with prison time, we can at least restore all we can of their life... if we execute them, it's too late.

2) I'm not a nice person. There is no afterlife, so death is the easy way out for these people. It's far better to let them rot in a prison cell for the rest of their lives. And even if I'm wrong, who cares... they'll have all of eternity to suffer for their crimes, so what difference does it make if they get there a few years later?

3) Like Thanateros said, it's not an effective deterrent. To make it an effective deterrent (as opposed to just removing a threat, which life in prison does equally well), it needs to be an immediate sentence. But to have an immediate sentence, you have to abandon all hope of justice... innocent people will die by the thousands, since there's no time for a fair trial to find all the evidence. I don't think I really need to explain why this is a problem.

4) Like Landsknecht, I don't trust the government that much. Point #1 is true in theory, but our government doesn't even do a very good job of getting "as close as possible". Just take a look at the various abuses performed in the name of "national security"... I don't trust the government that invented the concept of "unlawful combatants" (what a joke.... why not just call them "traitors to the Crown" or "enemies of the State" and be done with it?) with the power of life and death over its citizens.

I think all the cons for the death penalty have been listed. There aren't really many pros. It's simply a barbaric old process that should have been removed from the American "justice" system decades ago, following most of the rest of the planet's example. "Eye for an eye" is not only wrong IMO, but it's also completely hypocritical of the US government in this case considering what religion they constantly tote as being their own (murder most definitely not being a part of it. And it is murder). Killing someone because they killed/did something to someone else doesn't do any good, and neither is it "justice". Also a lot of the methods used are just sick. So yes, that's my opinion on it.

Why are people so critical of the government? With the exception of a few politicians, everybody working for any government is highly intelligent, so shouldn't they be the ones making the decisions? Would you rather put your trial in the hands of somebody with a degree in law, or a 16 year old school dropout who works in McDonald's?

Well at least we'd get a cheaper Big Mac!

I'm lazy today so I'm just going to say that I have the same opinion as Switch, which I do. Murder is murder. Just because someone took a life that doesn't mean you can take his.

Textbook black and white fallacy. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean that the other side is right by default. A 16 year old dropout is a worthless moron. Most of the people in the government are worthless morons (if you think there's some test of intelligence to get a government job, you're a hopeless idealist). Most of the people in the US are worthless morons.

And you're obviously clueless about how criminal trials work. Your life isn't in the hands of a well-trained judge, it's in the hands of the 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Jury trials, while a good idea in theory, are a joke in practice. Forget about a well-educated jury, having any relevant technical knowledge or higher education is a fast way to get yourself removed from the jury pool. The lawyers don't want rational decisions based on facts and evidence, they want appeals to emotion and dramatic speeches.

The only real difference between your dropout cook and the government as a whole is that the 16 year old is only worthless moron. Politicians are worthless morons AND evil. If you have any illusions of justice, especially from the current administration, I have three words for you: "unlawful enemy combatant".

I noticed.


Even if they are stupid, if 11 of them say guilty, that's enough to go by. That's why there's 12, not 3.

Read Triple Cross by Peter Lance, it will give you an idea of how incompetent the middle management is in our intelligence agencies and FBI. Now in theory, that is were we place some of our best people, imagine what the rest of the bureaucracies (don't even get me started on how inefficient ours is) look like.



So we have 12 stupid people instead of 11, your point? 12 is not some magic number which cures stupidity. And if the jury is not full of stupid people, its full of people who do not understand the legal system and just want to get back to their lives. Remember how most people view jury duty?

So you think that just because somebody is on the jury means they're stupid? All twelve? I guess that's just ignorance on your part.

Nice strawman. I never said it automatically made someone stupid. What I said is that 12 is not a magic number which will prevent an all stupid jury. You also missed the point about how people do not want to be part of the jury or ignorance of the legal system.

Point: Juries are currently to flawed to decide whether someone lives or dies.

Interesting article about the death penalty as deterrent to murder.

Link

Not to disrupt your argument that much, but you're really placing too much value on the lives of people who are accused of, and have enough evidence supporting any crime that would call for the death penalty. Also, usually these things go through a juror selection process where lawyers can filter out anyone that has beliefs which might make their case harder than it needs to be. Really, it's the stupid people who come into it without any ideas of their own who are of most use to the lawyers since they can easily be manipulated. The jury doesn't need to be smart, or even really know what the hell is going on, it's ultimately the lawyers and the evidence which decides who lives or dies, the jury is just there to make it look fair and honest.

At any rate, once you're accused of such a crime, you'll never fully recover, even if you are found innocent. I would prefer death, even a painful, brutal death, than to live with people always questioning the verdict. I have faith in the system, as flawed as it is, it's good enough. Besides, being dead is certainly better than being someone's bitch for 20-30 years.

True enough in most cases. My problem with juries is on the cases on the cusp, where they seem to have a "guilty until proven innocent" view (opposite of what our justice system should view the accused to be). Now it is those cases where there is a risk of possibly executing/imprisoning someone innocent.

That's the problem of the legal system and lawyers who make mistakes, not the jury. If you remove the jury, and have the decision based solely on the judge, the same thing could still happen... And while I know nothing about legal history, believe the whole point of a jury of your peers was to make those instances less common. It's really only the high profile cases where it becomes an issue, and even then they try to filter out any jurors who have such biases. With longer trials, they usually end up having to dismiss jurors or call for a mistrial if such things happen. Even still, in criminal cases the jury usually just decides if the person is guilty or not, not what the penalty should be. People may end up getting a life sentence if they're innocent, but they aren't going to be killed unless more than a few people screwed up, or didn't care about their future of practicing law.

"An eye for an eye, and soon the world will be blind," Ghandi.

You have to look here, not at an act of revenge, but of a way of protecting the population and deterring future criminals. While the death penalty could be called an effective way of protecting the nation, it is important to scrutinise the process behind it, after all, any jury can be swayed either way by persuasive arguement.

Isn't it funny how there are few rich people on death row?
This shows that true justice can never be achieved while we have humans judging other humans, which unfortunately until true Artificial Intelligence exists will be the case. The better lawyer you have, the more likely it is that you will get off, as, after all, it is not the evidence that matters, but how that evidence can be interpreted by others.

So, no, I do not agree with the death penalty, I think that it is not in the interests of society to allow it to continue to be the punishment for severe crimes. True, it achieves revenge for those that have been hurt, but there are better ways of going about it, while still not letting guilty people free to reoffend.

Law isn't an area I'm familiar with, but I'm fairly certain that there has to be certain criteria for the death penalty to be an option. As I can only think of really bad/screwed up people getting the death penalty, mass murderers mostly, while even significantly terrible crimes like kidnapping, torture, and rape, multiple homicide end up getting life in prison or life in psychiatric care. The reason why there aren't as many rich people on death row is usually because rich people don't normally commit those sorts of crimes, with enough evidence pointing to them, yet can't afford to get a lawyer which could lessen the sentence... Besides, for those people death is really a better alternative to life in prison.

I live in the Netherlands, so there is no death penalty. I am 60% pro and 40 % contra, though. I think dangerous killers who will certainly kill again if they get free, should get death penalty. Because no matter how well defended a prison is, escapes happen...

But still, it is inreversable. If someone has been executed, and later is proven to be unguilty...

So, actually I'm happy to live in a country without death penalty. I wouldn't want to have it reactivated again.

cya

Fritz

Damn it! I didn't misread the question and I voted "yes". So the nober of the "yes" votes should be smaller and the "No" larger! Sorry!
Why I wanted to vote no?
Because you don't have the right execute (self-defence is OK; although I'm against guns) someone nomatter what the circumstances are! Period!

Kinda funny you say that when you got this as a signature: "Death is only a new beginning, embrace it!"

Just kidding!

I vote "Both".
When you see a guy get murdered on the News, you think: "Poor fellow, hope the murderer rots in jail."
When your relative is murdered, you think: "I hope that motherF@€K&r dies horribly!"
That's what some people think, nowadays.

I am using Landsknecht’s points only because they were so well organized.

“1. Technology may make us pay later. With the advent of forensics, a good number of people on death row were found innocent, so what will happen with the next advance in forensics?”
This is a good point you make, I think if a person a falsely put to death their family or whomever their state should get a million dollars, this would be a deterrent to falsely killing people.
“2. Statistically, it does not act as a deterrent. Therefore, it becomes a form of legal revenge.”
This is not true statistically or in realistically (if the criminal gets executed they are not going to kill again) and it is legal retribution, not revenge.
“3. It is more expensive to put someone to death and give them their right to due process than it is to just keep them in prison for life.”
They should get due process if they are put to death or not so the cost you have left is the execution or the living cost of the prisoner, which lethal injection is cheaper.
“4. There is a subtle bit of racism in the death penalty. For example: A black person is more likely to receive the death penalty if they kill a white person than if they kill another black person.”
This may be true; if it is it needs to be fixed, but is a separate issue then believing in the death penalty.
“5. I simply do not trust the government to decide who lives and who dies and how it is done.”
Again if the system is broken, fix it, but is a separate issue then believing in the death penalty.

One of the government’s jobs is to protect us & carry out justice, if a criminal lives after killing someone you are in essence saying that the criminal’s life is worth more than the victom’s.


& against guns also look @ the avatar.
Ban all the guns so only criminals have them, good idea.

EDIT: Merged your posts. Unnecessary double post. Please just use the edit button if you want to add more to your post. Thanks.

- Switch

*laughs*

Right, the same government that drops million dollar bombs all over Iraq is going to care about that fine... if you want a deterent, execute the judges and jury who convicted the innocent person. Or better yet, don't allow the death penalty.



True, but if you keep them in prison for life, they aren't going to kill anyone either. And you still have the option to free them and let them salvage some part of their life if mistakes are made.

And I suggest you learn English 101: "retribution" and "revenge" mean the same thing.




Please, read the thread before posting. The cost doesn't come from the actual execution (and if that was the only cost, a bullet in the head is cheap and painless), it comes from the endless appeals filed in death penalty cases, and from keeping the prisoner on death row for decades while they try every possible appeal and pardon. In cases where the only sentence is prison time, it is more likely for the defense to drop their appeal (especially in the case of plea bargains and other deals). But if the sentence is death, you pretty much guarantee that the defense is going to use every legal trick in the book to postpone or cancel the execution.



No, the issue is exactly the same. I can't think of any government in all of human history that I would trust with that power. The system is broken because governments are inherently broken. Since the system will never be fixed, the death penalty can never be justified.



Ever hear of the concept of "two wrongs don't make a right"? And it's not the criminal's life that has worth, it's the lives of the potential innocents who WILL be executed if the death penalty is allowed. You might have heard of the idea of "better to let a hundred guilty men free than to execute a single innocent". The death penalty accomplishes absolutely nothing that life in prison can't, in exchange for significant moral and practical issues.

Not strictly relevent but the words 'retribution' and 'revenge' are subtly different. Whilst it IS true that revenge is retributive, retibution does not necessarily imply revenge. It is a repayment or balancing from whatever source and for whatever reason. Generally these days it is used when referring to balancing an evil act but that is not its sole usage. Where revenge implies intended pain and harm to the recipient, retribution intends to bring balance. Also where revenge is carried out by whoever believes themselves harmed by the 'guilty party', retribution may be sought by anybody. Indeed the guilty party may make an act 'in retribution' themselves without being prompted.

That having been said I agree that it is almost impossible to tell in many court cases whether a sentence reflects one or the other.

True, but in context, it's essentially the same thing. It doesn't matter if you kill someone "to balance their evil" or "to make them pay", the intent of "give them what they deserve" is exactly the same. The fact that he uses it to justify the death penalty, a case of punishment where the only thing given to the victim's side is the satisfaction of pain and harm, proves that he's talking about this sense of the word. There definitely isn't enough of a difference to change the moral status of the act, just by changing what you call it.

If it was a case of balance and correcting harm done, not punishment, it would be restitution, not retribution.

Retribution can mean rewarding in a positive sense too. However in the context used above I agree it is specifically a punishment. There could be a whole debate - not only re the death penalty - as to the extent to which juries (and judges) make their suggestions based on the concept of (fair) retribution or (by definition almost certainly unfair) revenge! Indeed the whole litigious process seems to be to extract penalties rather than, as you say, seek restitution.

Malchik, Peregrine. Good to see you again. (at least you replies)

The reason the judicial system exists is to maintain peace. If I steal something, I am punished to try and make me a productive citizen of these united states, but when heinous crimes such as murder happen, what then? Should we allow someone who has deliberately murdered someone to have the luxury of a prison cell ( because you do know that they get free food, shelter, television, and other services paid by the American Taxpayer). only to live the rest of their life. The purpose is not to make him a productive citizen, but to keep him from society (to maintain peace). So, why torture him with life of prison like that (although they do live in some luxury) ? Would the humanitarian thing to do be to end his life? I believe so. It is unfair to him and to the world to let a murderer stay for free in a taxpayer funded facility.

This only applies to the "sure-fire" convictions meaning that those people have been proved beyond degree that they committed murder.

I'm strongly against the death penalty because I'm paranoid. I am totally afraid of the government abusing its power and murdering innocent people under some pretense of criminal behavior simply because the person poses a threat to the government. You know, like someone disrupting the system, radical thinkers, what have you.

I would agree, why would American citizens have to waste their money to let a murderer spend the rest of his life, for me, I'm one of those who believe "an eye for an eye" where in this case, I believe that a murderer should be condemned to death.



That is nothing to worry about unless the country has "some" restraints on the press such as not allowing it to investigate "criminals" or other limitations. Given that the country you live in gives a decent amount of freedom to the press, there isn't much to worry about . Then again, there are still risks that the press turns a blind eye...

Yeah, that's why I use the word paranoid. It's unlikely, but I can't help being afraid of it.

Well, sometimes, the government really has no choice but to execute the criminal for everyone's good. If that criminal killed a thousand people, and if he breaks out of jail, he's likely to kill more people. That's more suitable for punishing severe crimes. So, my statement is that a man with a record of a thousand murders should be put to death. So, I don't know if I should trust the government or not. They might abuse their power, but so far, they haven't killed any innocent civilians. I gotta say, most countries are even more cruel. Like if you wanted to visit Germany, then a cop comes to arrest you, even when you arrived for no reason at all. Why would he?

My two cents added. That said.

Well, I don't know should I trust the government or not, but it seems we have to, we elect them after all (in most countries)

But there are rigged elections in some countries, and some countries that does not have elections at all, in which case, the people will be responsible for choices they didn't make...

We all have our rights, and we have choices to make. Either you can be innocent the way you are now, hanging out with family and friends, or you can become a cold-blooded killer leaving all the people who care about you in the dark, and just lose your sanity. This is why they issued the death penalty. As I said, some countries are cruel, some are not.

In Canada, ever since that phucking a$$hole Lester B. Pearson (I hope the hell you roll over in your grave a million-and-one times) and his Liberal f49907s abolished the death penalty in '63, more and more repeat offenders have been re-released into our good cities, and gone back to doing what they have always done before - killing, raping, stealing, and everything else in between.

I'm sick and tired of g*ddamn people using human rights as an excuse for being little chicken shats and not standing up for the common good. I'd support a re-instatement of the death penalty in Canada, because I know for a fact that it can and will deter violent crime (more specifically capital crimes), contrary to what little weakling Liberals and human rights activists say.

As the Jedi say... " No one deserves death, no matter what they have done. " If someone murders don't give them the pleasure of a quick death. Make them rot, in a cell... as someone once said "An eye for an eye? If we followed that principal we'd all be blind!" And its just a form of legal revenge... what if the murder was a innocent man who was at the wrong place at the right time? Think my friends, is it really worth it... just for a simple second of revenge? Who are we to play god?

I did not read whole topic through, but as far as I did I couldn't see any REALLY GOOD reason why should we kill any criminal for what he's done.

Basically every law is an opinion of some group of peoples. Opinion about what's right and what's wrong. So is the death penalty an opinion about what should be done if someone makes a crime bad enough. When the criminal for example murders his kills his victim, he may or may not have some reason to do that. It might be good idea and affect in good way to criminal in his context. Well, then government executes the ctiminal and for what reason? For the opinion of the people who created the law to allow such concequence.

The most basic reason to death penalty is merely an opinion, not the crime or its motives. So, does an opinion really justify a LEGAL MURDER?

What I think personally about a death penalty doesn't matter. I just hoped to bring in some new point of view. I hope you can get it out from my poor english..

Moderator note:

Threads with no activity for more than 30 days are considered to be dead, posting an irrelevant comment is thread necromancy, which is frowned upon and is against the forum rules.

Please do not resurrect old threads.

However your post has merit and a plainly stated opinion, so it shall remain.

Buddah

The death penalty is just wrong. Nobody deserves to die for the wrongs they've done. If they can realize what they've done is wrong, they deserve to live and rot. I only would allow exceptions for someone that has done something absolutely nasty like killing multiple people. Then, instead of this injection nonsense, they should be killed by firing squad.

The Death Penalty - I am for it.

Ultimately, I do not believe that one person has the right to sentence another person to death, unless in the event that an individual performs a crime of Murder, or plays a role in the death of another, such as that of a drunk driver who drives his car into another person, killing them. It is then my opinion that the person that committed the crime or was a party to the crime, forfeits his or her rights as a human being or in other words, the right to live.

However, I do not believe that when a person takes the life of another in self defense of either them self or of another, is the same as Murder. While true, bottom line you take the life of another, you do it in a manner to preserve life, namely the innocent. That is the key word. Innocent. I know it's a fine line.

I do not believe that a person who has committed murder, can ever be rehabilitated & released back into the general population. To me, it does not matter if the person is a 15 year old gang-banger & therefor underage or a 35 year old male or female. If you directly take the life of another in a manner other than in self defense, you no longer have the right to live yourself.

People need to be held accountable for their actions. If you are old enough to drink & drive, you are old enough to face the death penalty. What happens when a 10 year old boy or girl plays with his dads gun & it goes off, killing another? No, I do not feel that that boy or girl should die & I do believe that they can grow up to be very responsible individuals. As for their punishment, I could not even begin to answer that.

There is a lot more I could type when it comes to the death penalty. I do not believe that in the short paragraphs above, that I have convayed my feelings adiquatly. Bottom line, is that I STRONGLY believe that people need to be held accountable for their actions.

I feel that the cause of death to the condemned should be instant & thus as humane as possible.

-MRG

The only reason that the death penalty is "expensive" is because of all the legal fees to go through the process.
If you simply did a regular hearing, then instead of prison sentenced the person to death, and they took him to some death jail and mass shot them, it would be very much more cost effective than keeping them in prison.

Ok, i tried to keep it for myself until now.

For the ones who agree with death penalty, for the followers of the barbaric "eye for an eye" philosophy, for the ones who discuss if a bullet is more or less expensive than a rope, for the ones who think that some people don't fit in a society and must be removed.

YOU - SCARE - ME !

Murder is first an operation of the mind: if you think seriously that killing is right, you are already a murderer. there's no difference between the murderer who kills someone for a reason or not, and the ones who cheer when there's an execution somewhere. You always cheer upon someone else's suffering. I'd like to see you facing death, knowing there's no escape, i'd like you to struggle for life, trying to find some hope, knowing that you don't have any. Then you'll probably understand the value of human life. But maybe i'm too optimistic; someone said that when a murderer kills, he loses its humanity and its right to live. Its' exactly what i wanted to say: the death penalty supporter loses as well its ability to show mercy and empathy, and he's no more human. Should be it removed? yes, of course, following your perverse philosophy. But i don't feel sooooo great to decide this. For me is enough having fun showing you how ignorant you are. This is my "retribution" and i'm happy that way.

Sincerely yours

p.s. if the moderators think that i have been too much polemic, i apologize in advance. But i also want to warn them that not only religious topics could be offensive.

And what of people who think killing is necessary under certain circumstances, Delphinus?

Same as above. because there are NO certain circumstances to kill someone reasonably, no matter how much you try to find one, as well as there aren't any to make a war.

But le me propose something interesting: Why don't we reintroduce tribal law? If someone murders one of your relatives, you can murder him, and then his relatives will murder you. You see, in some little time we will remove an entire group of potential murderers (Murderer: someone who strongly believes that killing is a good thing) in a fast, efficient and CHEAP way! i definitely vote for TRIBAL LAW!

WOW. And people who support the death penalty scare you??? Seriously though, by your own logic you say that those who enjoy the idea of anothers death and those that "pull the trigger" are no different. So (honestly not trying to be a jerk, I have a point in this) by that logic are you a killer? I'm not trying to accuse you of being murdering scum, i'm just trying to point out that I really disagree with your reasoning and I don't honestly find it very logical(again, not trying to be rude or launch a personal attack on you). For the record, I don't approve of the death penalty. I want to make it clear though that I don't support it because I see it as the lesser of two punishments. If I had a choice of dying or of spending every day of the rest of my life in a cold and dark cell, then I would probably choose death. I would choose death because to me life is about being free and I would honestly rather die than give up my freedom.

I guess the misunderstanding comes from my poor english: when i say "i'd like to" i mean that i really want to see what these death penalty supporters think when they are in a situation like that. It's easy to say a lot of words full of civic pride and hate, staying out of the situation. While it's harder to put yourself in the prisoner's mind, even if he's one of the worst murderers, and realize that someday you could be at his same place. (who knows after all? everyone has evil thoughts in mind, and me too)
Will you really still say that you support death penalty? i really think no.

About the second part of your post, i'll try to explain my thoughts better: Yes, i still think that the murderer who plans to kill his girlfriend's lover, and the jury, or the judge, or all the people that wants his death after committing the crime are on the same side; their brain processes are the same, they think and act in the same way. And if you scan their heads with an xray machine, probably you'll notice that they have the same brain parts lightened up.

So, you advocate abolishing the military, and cheerfully welcoming whoever decides to invade?

Oh i forgot to say: it may be natural that you want the death of someone that murdered someone you know or love. I'd be the first one who comes before him and put my hands around his neck (I wouldn't need any dirty weapons). But this feeling MUST stay private. when it comes inside a society, and it's considered acceptabe and right, it's dangerous and must be BANNED. You can't go around weeping and crying because your society is full of naturalbornkillers when you don't give the good example first.

Here in italy we have the same opposite problem: crimes are well tolerated and you have a good chance to do 10 years in jail if you murder someone. Financial crimes are absolutely not considered: we have more than 25 condemned politicians who walk freely in our parliament. Some lifetime jail to someone would be a good thing. But WITHOUT touching human life

That is called resistance, not exactly a war that you decided to lead.