Tu your argument is moronic. Plus, you didnt answer my question. Is putting a convicted child rapist/ killer to death for raping and murdering innocent children as heinous as the multiple rapes and murders perpatrated by the convicted child rapist/ killer?
If your answer is yes, then your sense of reality is warped and I thank my lucky stars someone like you isn't a policy maker or someone of importance in the legal system.
I am not a rabid fan of the death penalty. However, in certain situations it is not only proper, but necessary. The terminally ill scumbag muslim terrorist that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 and killed innocent men, women and children in a firey death trap several thousand feet off the ground deserves to be beaten to death- forget about a lethal injection. Same goes people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, the DC sniper, and on and on and on. The rationale is not crime prevention but retribution. When you murder multiple people, children, or commit murder in furtherance of a sexual assault, commit a terrorist act which results in death and etc.-- The state should have the option to decide whether or not to deprive you of the right to live-- just as you deprived your victims of their right to live.
As long as there are proper and adaquate safeguards in place to ensure that the wrong person is not being put to death, I do not find the death penalty immoral for certain crimes of a particularly heinous nature.
And to be specific, YES (emphasis added) their lives are worth much less than yours, mine, or a cockroaches as far as im concerned. A civilzed soceity can discern when an individual based on their conduct has forefeited their right to live. The right to life, like any fundamental right is not absolute. Someone has the right to act like a monster-- And the people have the right to hold them accountable.
