[Gemme]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

So a quick question:

Hypothetical 1: We live in a culture where vendetta is allowed. I think your brother killed my father, so I kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Hypothetical 2: We live in a culture with the death penalty. The state thinks your brother killed my father so they try, convict and kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Question 1: What substantial consequential difference is there between these two?
Question 2: What is the substantial moral difference between these two?

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want the accused to go through the system and have good representation and the benefit of the doubt. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I also don't want to not give the death penalty 'in case' he really didn't do it.

Each case is individual.

If there is sufficient proof that a person killed another, then why is it MY moral responsibility? S/he did it. May their punishment fit their crime.

The thing about posting in these type of threads is that the debate gets heated and, inevitably, someone tries to prove their point and sway others.

I won't be swayed on this matter.