Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
It hasn't, the conversation is fluid and you brought up the burden of collective conscience which relates to anyone ordering it or carrying it out as an order, family or otherwise.
I went on to say as an example; to order the execution of someone via drone strike doesn't seem to have been considered too much of a heavy burden to the person who ordered it or the guy that pressed the fire button. So as far as executions go there is not a lot of difference, but the burden of conscience still lies with someone.
Whilst I understand the argument for the families not dictating the death sentence as not being fair on them, if a death sentence was given, the family could plea for clemency and save the accused life. In any case people wouldn't be taken out of court and killed in the corridor so they still have a chance even in the US.
Anyone who acted like Nathan Matthews and dismembers a body deserves to live with the possible eventuality of being executed later down the line. Whether they are or not is a different matter.
Are you really trying to suggest that someone in the military being ordered to take a life is an appropriate analogy for allowing the bereaved relatives of a victim to determine whether the culprit is executed? Good Grief!
And then you go on to further muddy the waters by suggesting that a victim's family could plead for the executioner to stay his hand, as though that in some way justifies your suggestion. So you're also advocating the death sentence to be imposed by the state as well as the victim's relatives. You refer to the US where there are 4 times more murders per head of population than the UK; the death sentence works well there doesn't it?
The conversation's fluid? Your thought processes are positively febrile. In fact, reading through your messy illogical attempt at justification, here's the most appropriate response: