Many disagree with Kant, in this statement especially. However, I think his idea is dead on. If the person who is on trial, with the chance of execution, had in fact executed one or more people him/herself, why would it be wrong to give them a taste of their own medicine? Some argue that it is still unjust to kill, in any case. I ask, who says? Your mom? Last I heard, the law was in charge of this matter. If the law states something is legal, than who are we to argue? Yeah I understand the law has been wrong countless times, slavery for instance, but in different cases which is an entirely different case. The law, the murdered and family, and the murderer should be the only basis behind any decision of whether or not the death penalty should be the punishment. I guarantee you that all of the parties I stated will agree that the death penalty is fair even if they (murderer) don't admit to it.
I've thought about it a lot, in both perspectives. Yes, a murderer may need "a taste of their own medicine". Although, by executing, "the Law" is also murdering these individuals in result of their killing(s). It's pretty much a 'Catch-22'. An individual kills someone which makes them a murderer. So, why isn't the person who executes the man/woman called a "murderer"? They are in fact killing him/her, even if they're only 'abiding by the law'. I, Myself, don't believe anyone on this earth "deserves to die". It's just my opinion & I'm only speaking my mind, so I hope you don't take any of this offensively :)
ReplyDelete