But the argument the state makes is not "killing is wrong". The laws are based on one citizen taking away another citizen's right to life without a valid reason (determined by laws) or due process. The state says that killing people for reasons not allowed by law is wrong. It is a subtle but definite distinction.
So... there are rules for killing? The state has decided that killing is wrong, it is murder (some states have Castle Laws that allow for deadly force in self defense and some states do not, some states accept battered persons defenses, some do not) and in order for that state (or fed) to prove that they mean it (killing is wrong), the
consequence -- not punishment, because it is never fairly or evenly applied -- is being killed?
"Killing is wrong, but I will kill to show you that killing is wrong" What? Premeditated killing is murder, it does not matter to me that you may not think so, I do and that is
my opinion. We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.
The DP exists for a variety of reasons:
1. Punishment - if you really want to argue semantics this is where to do it as the basic justifications for any form of punishment are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, restoration and incapacitation. I will list them separately here because most people do not think of "punishment" this way.
2. Deterrence
3. Retribution / revenge, whatever you would like to call it
4. Closure (we can see this as restoration -- or "righting the wrong" for the families)
(there's another one I will mention but not list -- I recently read that it is "good for the environment" --oh the lengths we will go to....)
Again -- instead of semantics why don't we discuss the issues that make up the death penalty? I have listed a few above -- what are some others?