I've got a paper due on "Ethical Dilemmas", and

>>2576884
If you are specifically wondering if it is "acceptable", then just accept a policy and stick to it, its as easy as that.

>>2576891
I havent really decided yet; I wish to value the pros and cons. We're also debating this topic next week, so I would like to prepare myself as much as I can, and a lot of people on this board have a very reflected view on multiple subjects.

> Theirfather figure will be gone, and the kids might grow up with hatred againt the justice system.
>The psychological strain might be too much to handle for the kids and their mother.

These arguments are not against death penalty, but against any kind of severe penalty.
Twenty years in prison will also have dire side effects.

The question of whether punishment is legitimate in principle is valid, though.
Instead of putting so much importance on the penal system, we could very well start to treat killings and other hurtful actions not as crimes but as risks, and work on their causes to reduce their frequency, and on their consequences to alleviate the damages done.
Like we do with disease and accidents.


But that's not the question you've been asked.

>>2576884

The family/father con is irrelevant in my mind. Father figures can be replaced, and on a second note, in nearly any society they would still lose their father to imprisonment anyway.

>>2576884
>People who kill people should be killed.
According to?

>There is no way that he can be a good influence on anyone in society now that he has killed someone, especially his kids.
How do you know?

>Why should a man who has possible taken away everything that mattered for someone else get to live; that is immoral in itself.
Why is it immoral?

>He has killed two people
Kill him and the oldest child.

>>2576884
>He has killed two people

You can't actually know that for a start, what if the poor man has suffered a miscarriage of justice?

>>2576884
I have no problem with capital punishment. If he isn't killed, killing will be legitimized to his children. For the CONs, though, definitely mention the fact that there's no way to know for sure if he did it. Even if they have a video, it's possible that it's CGI. (not exaggerating, it's undetectable now)

>>2576952
> If he isn't killed, killing will be legitimized to his children.
You underestimate cultural taboos.
Incest is not against the law in my country and it is still generally seen with disgust.
I don't think murder can ever be legitimized, as long as people fear death.

>>2576884

PRO and CON weighted debated is flawed in this specific question as a choice between life an death because you assume an equal weight between both measures.

Hate only breeds hate, only love conquers hate it's an ancient law.

You may find a middle way because the dilemma in this instance is artificial. How does one know that his name is John and what's the relation between his actions and family. Who decides to kill him just as did he really decide to kill two people? What is death penalty and how does justice prevail, in providing reparation, leading by example or maintaining order, to what degree and to which interest? Does society feel remorse in an equal way as he did through his actions? And more importantly what if he was innocent, would his death simply be justified as collateral damage for a greater good? What is the nature of acceptance into living by justifying life and taking it away, what is the origin of human life, survival or accepting justifiable death; and how benevolent are our actions opposed to malevelont ones?

>>2576928
this