>So no crime, no matter how
>heinous merits death? Society
>would not be better off
>with the death of certain
>particular individuals? I can't
>agree. I've seen crime
>touch so many people.
>And I"ve seen the guilty
>go free, only to commit
>a far worse act.
>I disagree with the death
>penalty for practical reasons, not
>moral ones.

So you do not think taking a life however morally corrupt deserves to be spared? I disagree witht he death penalth for both practical and moral reasons.

>So suddenly a victim's family wants
>to preserve the life of
>someone who hurt them?
>Sounds like turn the other
>cheek to me.

Turn the other cheek...maybe...I guess it depends on how you look at it - but do you argue that the an "eye for an eye" rule is better.

>It would punish the person who
>committed the crime. What
>other goal is there to
>accomplish?

I guess rehabilitation is too much like right to go after. And if we really think about it...What punishment is there in death? Through death you become free...at least from these worldly oppressions.

>- protect society - you can
>protect society to an extent
>by locking the person up,
>but it often only makes
>the person worse, and those
>that they come in contact.

Unfortunately your right...but that's because our jail systems boast of rehabilitation but in fact is more about capitalism.

>- deterrence - Jail is a
>deterrent to those of us
>who would commit a crime
>but don't choose to because
>of the ramifications. But
>that doesn't describe every person
>at every time in there
>existence. Many of us
>break crimes daily, I speed.

I don't think you should patronize the argument. I wouldn't compare speeding to taking a life.

>What else is left?
>Punishment.

But to what degree and at whose expense?


**It's better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
-James Thurber

http://nativemagazine.com
Are you a native?
I am.