Forgiveness is the hardest thing for me to apply to the real world. Should we actually kill these depraved people? The Bible straight up says thou shalt not kill. So while no one wants to be killed, are we even supposed to kill in self defense?
The Death Penalty should only be reserved for those we cannot be certain will or won't continue to act as they have done.
There is no way to determine if a serial killer has truly repented and reformed. Their continued existence is a perpetual threat to all those around them.
In other words, the Death Penalty should be reserved for those whose mere presence continues to be a hazard to others.
People like Jeffrey Dahmer just being alive is a terror to all those who encounter him, and he was never repentant in the slightest. Even if he were trying to repent, it could all still be an act by a manipulative monster.
More than anything else, the Death Penalty is effective in deterring all criminal activity it is associated with. If the punishment is too high, a bulk of repeat offenders won't commit the crime to begin with. It does, however, have a draw-back in that over-application of the punishment leads criminals to become more inventive and use patsies to commit crimes.
There needs to be a balance in its use, which is why I am more in favor of the Death Penalty only being used for repeat offences (you've done the same crime more than once) and for individuals who we cannot reliably determine if they will commit the crime again.
There's only one way to be sure they will never offend again, so it's the obvious punishment.
Forgiveness is the hardest thing for me to apply to the real world. Should we actually kill these depraved people? The Bible straight up says thou shalt not kill. So while no one wants to be killed, are we even supposed to kill in self defense?
The Death Penalty should only be reserved for those we cannot be certain will or won't continue to act as they have done.
There is no way to determine if a serial killer has truly repented and reformed. Their continued existence is a perpetual threat to all those around them.
In other words, the Death Penalty should be reserved for those whose mere presence continues to be a hazard to others.
People like Jeffrey Dahmer just being alive is a terror to all those who encounter him, and he was never repentant in the slightest. Even if he were trying to repent, it could all still be an act by a manipulative monster.
More than anything else, the Death Penalty is effective in deterring all criminal activity it is associated with. If the punishment is too high, a bulk of repeat offenders won't commit the crime to begin with. It does, however, have a draw-back in that over-application of the punishment leads criminals to become more inventive and use patsies to commit crimes.
There needs to be a balance in its use, which is why I am more in favor of the Death Penalty only being used for repeat offences (you've done the same crime more than once) and for individuals who we cannot reliably determine if they will commit the crime again.
There's only one way to be sure they will never offend again, so it's the obvious punishment.