criminal recidivism-they've paid their debt

[linguist]

Afterall, if he hadn't caused the problem, he wouldn't be dead. I don't think the pharmacist ever would have shot anybody if he hadn't felt threatened.

My boyfriend put it pretty succinctly- "They had a choice. They didn't have to go in there. Once they were there, they didn't have to pull the gun out. Even after they pulled the gun out, they had a chance to put it away and leave. They didn't do that. So be it."

except that the one who was shot did not have a gun, nor was he the one who pulled the gun in the first place, according to the article. and i don't believe anyone is claiming the pharmacist wasn't justified in the first shot. if it had been left at that, fine. if the boy had died as a result of being shot in the head, unfortunate, but ok. the problem comes with the pharmacist taking the law into his own hands, handing down a sentence of execution that was far beyond the scope of the crime by shooting several more times after the boy was incapacitated. at the point where he was rendered unconscious, he should have been restrained until the police arrived. should the robber have been punished? absolutely, within the law. he should have gone to trial and gone to jail. he should not have been executed.

and in answer to your boyfriend, after their friend was shot, the rest of them, including the one with the gun, did leave, hence the chase the pharmacist gave them before coming back to finish off the first one.

[Flyndaran]

...Why am I ok with this when I don't feel the death penalty is appropriate? I don't think it's "ok" so much as it just wasn't "wrong." In a life threatening situation, I just don't believe the criminal who caused the incident gets rights over the other person. Afterall, if he hadn't caused the problem, he wouldn't be dead. I don't think the pharmacist ever would have shot anybody if he hadn't felt threatened. And I don't feel people like that deserve to be punished the same way the instigators do...
.

...

So you don't feel they should be killed except when they are killed? Or is it that the state shouldn't kill, but citizens can?

I think that killing people when your life isn't in immediate danger is murder. I still haven't read a reasonable argument against that.

...Why But I do wish people would accept the fact that some people are just plain evil. Some people will be criminals because they CAN. Not all people are down on their luck and have no other choice in life...

Evil is a dehumanizing religious concept, so I can't accept it as fact.

[unholypet]

and actually kids don't have the ability to decide much-society's rules dictate that-and when your mother is "guilting" you into something-it's pretty difficult to say no.

It may be difficult, but they still had a choice. Saying "no" IS harder than saying yes, but its ridiculous to outrule.

and a child is not emotionally mature enough to handle things like that-I know I've been there.

A child, yeah, but 12 and 14 are ages that children become adolescents. They know the difference between right and wrong, and aren't morons like society would have you believe.

Those kids may not be far-thinking, but they aren't retarded, and obviously not inept. It was their CHOICE to make, and they made it.

[Slytovhand]

2 things I wanted to bring up.

Firstly, following on directly from the 12/14 year olds.... while they certainly aren't retarded, and do have some sense of ethics and morality, I think we should also remember that most likely for the 12-14 years they were growing up, their sense of societal values would have been tweaked towards the 'anarchist' direction. Thus, it's not like life was all peachy keen and wonderful, and all of a sudden they were thrown into this turmoil of what to do now things are bad. I'd suggest, things had been going downhill for a while, and so this is just part of the slope they were on.

Just sayin'!

Point 2 - back at BK.

To what extent do we take this. Taking a leaf out of another post somewhere, do you allow the embezzler who is apparently reformed, or at least 'paid her debt' to run your company's books? Do you allow the child offender, who has served their time and is now reformed to work in your pre-school as a janitor??

Because the suggestion is, once you've served your time, you get back to being a normal everyday citizen, and you shouldn't have your past hanging over your head.

What's ok, and what's not?