>>>>>I agree with this completely:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating. Regardless what sort of murder a person commits - really vicious, or just vicious (how could it not be at least vicious), the person should be allowed out of prison either: 1. When discovered to actually be innocent of the crime, or 2. When the person they killed returns to life (plus about 10 years for causing such a disruption in the recently reanimated corpse's daily routine).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think we're forgetting the victims of those vicious murders. Is justice done for them if their murders live?
>>>
>>>I guess it depends on your definition of 'justice'. If you believe that kililng somebody brings justice, then you may have a point. I believe however that killing that person brings nothing more than revenge, and I don't equate revenge with justice.
>>
>>
>>That's easy for you to say. But for the murdered, it is justice.
>
>You can't seriously think the murdered person really cares... can you?


Look, all I'm saying is just because one thinks it's revenge, doesn't mean it is.
I don't view it as revenge. I look at it as just.

You can use revenge arguement with any form of punishment. Punishment should fit the crime. There is no justice in allowing violent/calculating murders to keep their life when they've taken others'. We put down violent dogs after they've mauled/killed a human. Murders are no longer human, in my view, and have no place in our society.