I really enjoy the investigation of concepts such as the right to life and the inevitability of death. Do you realize that it is only humans that commit murder for whatever reasons? Animals kill but they do not murder, they do not hate, they do not judge. I find that interesting.

I would suggest that this is an oversimplification and presents a fairly narrow perspective. Yes, we can believe that everyone has the right to their life, but what is not addressed is what happens when this ‘murderer’ (which infers that there was no accident nor an act of self-defense) takes the life of his victim, who, I hope that we can agree, also has that same right to life? I, of course, assume that this was a completely ‘innocent’ individual with no culpability in the act.

I find it disturbing that the narrative immediately begins the process of painting someone who may disagree with some ‘absolute’ right as ‘people in favor of capital punishment’. I think that is unfair and inconclusive. This is not a simple concept of black and white. There are multiple issues that must be considered, contemplated, and concluded.

Can an individual commit murder with abandon and then claim some nebulous and undefined right to life? Is there no responsibility or obligation that is inherent in every law? The victim could be the father of twelve children with parents and grandparents, not to mention another dozen brothers and sisters and a hundred relatives, all replete with children of their own. They may all be impacted by this horrible act. Does this person who commits murder have any culpability at all? The family may well be destitute without their ‘breadwinner’. How are all these things addressed?

Without a ‘lot’ more information, I would not judge those in favor of capital punishment too harshly, they are not the individuals that killed without compunction and I would tend to think without ethics or morality as well. Where does justice play its part?