Well on that subject, the way I see it, it's all about the punishment fitting the crime. Let's say a man kidnaps a young girl, rapes her, then murders her. Yeah, you can throw him in jail for life, and he won't be able to do it again. But that misses the point. What he did was horrible, and violated the girl's basic right to life. His punishment should fit the crime: He denied the girl a life, we deny him his.
In addition, sad as it is, there are people who fight to get these kind of criminals OUT of prison. Dead men can't be paroled. Might sound a bit cruel, but all too often horrible criminals have been let loose to kill again. Remove them from existence, and the problem's no longer there.
Let's imagine we had such law. Now imagine someone was senteced for something he did not do. The lawyer failed, it happens. It just seemed as though he was the culprint but he really wasn't. He get's senteced though. And senteced to death.
How can you justify that? How is this anywhere near justice?
I basically agree with what NoeL said on the matter.
Edit: NoeL, there's a German author by the name of "Günther Grass". He once said that "Love, faith and hope are the shelf warmers of the new testament". Reading those opinions by guys that consider themselves christian makes me think he is right.
Also on that part where you say: "He denied the girl a life": Not true. It might sound a little harsh but the girl will get over it. Really, she will. In about 3-5 months would be healthy, but there's to fear post-traumatic influences on her psyche and maybe even depressive tendencies. But all of that can be helped with psychologial therapy and one day the girl will get over her sad fate and live a happy life again. Again, that's not just some opinion but actually is backed up by psychological (empiristic) research.
A similar thing is true for the culprint: people can be helped. They don't have to get sentenced to death.
Edited by Sheik91, 01 August 2011 - 07:38 AM.