Death Penalty Issue. Please Read. Good Question?

if you get the death penalty for murder, why doesnt the executioner get the death penalty?

why is it ok for the government to give permission to a person to take a life and it be ok?
Answers:
Very good question, now you know what it means when the government does something and someone says that the govenment can get away with murder.

---

For the same reason each and every soldier who has killed in the name of the U.S. does not face the death penalty.

For the same reason that President Bush does not face the death penalty more than 3,500 times.

And for the same reason that you do not face the death penalty when using a condom.

---

For the same reason that if you or I put someone somewhere against there will it's kidnapping. If the court does it it's jail time.

The law's the law

weeder

---

Killing is never justified, unless you plan on eating what you kill!

---

i see it the same way. whenever someone says they're for the death penalty because they believe in "an eye for an eye" i suggest that we should kill people who "pull the switch" (and so on and so on.)

---

that happens all the time.should a solider be killed because he was ordered to kill...

---

The state has sovereignty and can make laws allowing it to take life.

While I agree with those posters opposing the death penalty, the state still has power.

---

It's based on the social contract of people with their society/government. If you've commit ed an act/crime against the republic/social body, then they retain the right to punish you. The executioner is performing a service and duty as a result of the laws of the social group, he is merely a tool.

Why is it okay for the government to do this? All moral issues aside, because the social group agreed (by majority/unanimously, etc) that they have the right to do this. Read "Plato's Republic" if your really curious about this kind of thing. Just keep in mind that he is referring to an idealized social setting. Also great is Foucault's ""Crime and Punishment" or "Madness and Civilization".

---

If the death penalty is awarded for a right cause, then the Govt may be forgiven. If you take the life of someone, sombebody else has the right to take your life. This somebody else is the Govt, which is supposed, at least in principle, to protect innocent people of the country.

---

If you choose to ascribe to the concept of an eye for an eye, then the debt is paid when the murderer is put to death. However, it is not sufficient to argue from that point alone. The government is entrusted with the security of our society, which means that if an execution is the best way to protect society-which includes prisoners-then they proceed with doing so. In this case, the executioner fills the same role as a soldier, who kills an enemy soldier to prevent him from harming others.

If you look at statistics, murderers in prison are much more likely to kill people in prison with them than criminals who have not committed capital offenses.

With modern judicial standards coupled with today's technology, the likelihood of executing the wrong person-long a strong argument against capital punishment-is virtually zero. The death penalty is only used when the evidence is irrefuteable, or so overwhelming that it leaves no doubt of guilt.

The executioner is not a threat to society, so there is no reason to put him to death. He is just doing what he's paid to do.