About 7482 death sentences have been handed out over 31 years. Of those 117 were innocent people (7). Even though that doesn’t like much, over one hundred innocent people died because they were falsely accused. The topic of deciding one's punishment for killing another has been discussed many times. In many cases innocent people are killed, because they were wrongly convicted. Since death is irreversible a thorough discussion is need to make the right decision. Despite the fact people think death is the right punishment, if someone kills another, but I strongly belive determining one’s death penalty, should be thoroughly discussed and exceptions should be made if the the death occurs in war and if through mercy killing Some say if one kills …show more content…
A soldier's duty is to protect innocent people when a war is occurring (1). This profession is justified because each country have the duty to protect their civilians from enemy attacks (1).This also applies to violent terrorist attacks, where the army, navy, air force have to work together to keep the country safe. Too add, soldiers are trained and equipped to kill, by the government and by the rules of war it is legal. In war if another country has an intent to kill and does so by threatening, then that country has forfeited their right not to be killed and this altercation. A past commander, LTC Pete Kilner states “It’s helpful to think of killing in war as akin to a doctor amputating the infected limb of a wounded warrior—it’s sad and painful, and it takes training and courage to do right, but is the morally right choice among lousy alternatives and therefore ought to be done”(2). Kilner compares an amputated limb to soldiers in war. If soldiers didn’t kill the enemy then lots of innocent people would have died as a consequence. Similar to, if the doctor hadn’t amputated a gangrened leg, then the infection would have spread through the body. Kilner’s point from this comparison is that killing the enemy is necessary to saving innocent people’s lives. As well as moral justification in killing in war, medical affairs should be well …show more content…
Mercy killing is when a person asks to be killed because of their incurable illness. One way for that to happen is, doctors and close family or friends inject a substance that kills the patient, and sends them into peace.(3)The society feels like it’s god task to determine when a person’s lifetime is up. When a human decides to be mercy killed, they simply play god.(4) In another article, the author has explained the doctrine of double effect , “why mercy killing can be a justified act”. The article states “According to this doctrine, an act of killing is justified if the death is only a side effect (or an unintended consequence that one could foresee), but is not the primary intended consequence of one’s act. For example, I am justified in killing someone in self defense since my primary aim is to protect my life, while the foreseen side effect is the death of the attacker.”(5) Thomas Aquinas gives the reader an example by making an analogy with another situation. How it applies in mercy killing is that, when a doctor treats a patient for debilitating pain with high doses of painkillers such as morphine while knowing the consequence could be death of the patient, this is justifiable. The reason being the doctor is still making all efforts to treat the patient as opposed to simply giving a dose of lethal injection so the patient can no longer suffer.(5) In the article Walter R