The idea behind legal punishment is the intent to deter people from committing the crime based on the simple fact that they will be punished accordingly to the level of the crime committed. However, in the case of the death penalty one must assess the situation accordingly. Lets say the crime committed is murder, which is the only time the death penalty could be justified, and in this example there are two different cases being judged. The first one is a man that has committed murder out of revenge because his wife was beaten by a man while she was walking home from work. The second case of murder is committed out of cold blood simply because the man didn't like the way another man was presenting himself, such as a "stereotypical" homosexual may present themselves. In the first case pertaining to revenge, I believe the death penalty to be unjustifiable because of the fact that he had a reason to attack the man simply because he attacked his wife.
Crime is down by more than 10% under this governme...
Burning Money is Financial Crime and Waste in Chin...
An ad from the Ecologist Green Party in Mexico pro...Wouldn't a lion attack another lion if his pride had been attacked? Who's to say the man didn't attack his wife again the next night and in the next attack his wife possibly be killed in the tussle? The man in this instance should not be punished to harshly, especially under the death penalty, because he was simply protecting his family, doing what he must do. However, in the case of the hate crime I feel the man has lost all natural rights and deserves the death penalty. So, while I believe the deterrence of the death penalty is justifiable I also believe the situation should also be judged accordingly. However, to answer your question with a little more depth I do believe it is justifiable because everyone...