Each person lives their own lives and are responsible for the consequences that follow each decision they chose to make. The government has made a law that taking one's life is illegal. Only slightly excuseable in the case of self defense. So when that law was made, there was no exceptions or loopholes. The law was NO TAKING THE LIFE OF ANOTHER BEING. So what right does the politicians or the judges or even the people of the state have to decide that a man is to be put to death?
I strongly believe in an eye for and eye but that does not ...view middle of the document...
Most cases of the death penalties are from people that have taken revenge against someone that has wronged them severely.
Course im not saying thats all the cases. Theres also a case where a man committed an extrememly severe act like taking the life of an innocent man or woman and most definitely deserves to be punished. But how does it help if the government just takes it upn themself to kill of that man and say its justified but yet it wouldnt be right for any other man to do the same in the same circumstances?
I feel that it would be just as severe if a different kind of punishment was given, a punishment that would most likely be able to turn a mean bitter criminal in to a decent happy citizen. A punishment where the criminal is made to feel so close to death that either he never wishes to be put back in that hell or he realizes that what he did was not worth all this wasted time in pure hell. Either way it would be more humane then taking a life and calling it justified just because a a few people called the jury and one man (or woman) called the judge decided dat the person called the lawyer had a good point!In case the lawyer was just so convincing but actually his client was guilty or maybe innocent, there wont be a chance that a real innocent man died for nothing.