|
In the criminal justice system, the death penalty is the debt they pay to society. To experiment on them would be cruel and unusual punishment, and even a convicted felon owns his body parts, unless he enters the Armed Forces.
The italicized phrase in your post above also does not make a distinction between murder and things like accidental death, self-defense, temporary insanity (controversial but nevertheless on the books), or a soldier in time of war killing on the battlefield. What about a person who mistakenly thinks he has repressed memories of childhood molestation, and kills his molester? Is contract killing wrong, or acceptable if it's done for a greater good? What if the killer really enjoys his "greater good" work, and getting paid for it is just a bonus? What if you're told that you have to kill someone, and if you don't you'll die as a result?
In attempting to refine the statement, you will find yourself sifting through subtler and sublter shades of meaning, until the lines are completely blurred and it becomes a matter of personal opinion.
At any rate, say the killer did it for the wrong reasons, was aware of the impact of his actions, was sane, etc. Someone who should be locked up. Can they no longer produce something worthy, without sacrificing their own bodies? Are they not allowed the chance to redeem themselves? I contend that we have these essential rights. I contend that humanity must be compassionate, because, to paraphrase someone, we as a nation are judged by how we treat our lowest common denominator. Even the most henious monster has a right to a fair trial. If they do not, granting this right becomes a moral decision, rather than an ethical one. And we all know how radpily and drastically social morals morph back and forth. I do not consider myself a conservative, but I agree with Justice Scalia's take on the Constitution--that the rights granted therein cannot be endangered by a potentially temporary and mistaken popular consensus.
|