Death sentence. Yes or no?

[Puppyroach]

zero129 said:

Puppyroach said:

That is not how a justice system is supposed to work. It is never built upon the view of "an eye for an eye" but rather imprisonment or fines depending on the gravity of the crime and a focus on rehabilitation of individuals. Is your view that if someone shoots another person, but that person doesn´t die, the sentence is to shoot the criminal aswell? As a society we must be far more evolved than this.

No my view is very simple. If something happened by an accident or if the is not enough evidence to show that a person killed another etc then i dont believe that person should be put to death. However, If a person clearly goes out and blows up a place or shoots up a place where the is innocent people and children (Who didnt even get to see most of their life unlike the killer who clearly seen enough of his) well i believe that person should be killed also..

What if that person is under influence of some kind of narcotics that they have received from someone else? What if you have someone like Pol Pot, who manipulated people into killing for him? What is sufficent evidence?