I believe that the recent case in California set the precedent for it being considered two murders (the Lacey Peterson murder, Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders).
Interesting perspective punkusmartyrus. Prison is generally not a good life, let's look at this from another angle though. As you mentioned, "natural law" may come into play. In other words, the rights that we have to our life are somewhat forfeit when one commits a crime. You wrote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkusmartyrus
If friends and family feel the need for revenge & "justice" then it should be allowed as such. It's called natural law (cause & effect)...
|
So in effect, you are saying that the state should not protect the criminal from the friends and family. As such, you seem to suggest that criminal has forfeited (some of) his rights because of his crime (committing and conviction of such). On that you and I agree. As such, however, there should be no reason to prevent the state from putting such a person in a prison. After all, if that crminial has forfeited some of his rights, why shouldn't the state be able to deal with that person as the state sees fit (including prison and/or the death penalty)?
I note that in your post, you suggest that the family should be able to execute the criminal, but what if one of the rare cases arises where the police arrest the wrong person? What if the person convicted is not guilty and later the truth is realized? Would your "natural law" suggestion mean that the family members who killed that person would be protected? What about retribution from the family of the convicted person (whether wrongly convicted or not) on the family of the original victim, leading to a chain of retribution killings/family vendettas?
One of the reasons for trial and imprisonment and the drawn out death penalty is that if evidence is later brought up to clear a convicted felon prior to execution, the state avoids executing an innocent person (as we all know, it is possible to be convicted without ever committing a crime). Another reason is to avoid the situation of escalating killings between families and friends, one side being the relatives of the original victim and the other being the relatives of the first accused or convicted murderer. The people have chosen to allow the state to prosecute crimes because the state can attempt to be impartial, something that family and friends cannot be. As such, the state can cover all the bases. It can find someone guilty and still reserve the right to delay sentencing and execution of the sentence (including the death penalty) pending more information. It can also impose a sentence without triggering a vendetta effect. Is this something you want to give up?
-- Jeff