? ..why would I kill my own mum? We got goverment to do that, given the scenario takes place in a state/country with death penalty.

Or ..did you mean something else?

What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother? If you have voted for it than you should step up to the plate and do it yourself as you did state that you would not let your emotions determine your actions or something to that effect.

What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother if you have voted for it?

You need to specify and clarify your question.

What is the difference between directly and indirectly?

We do not understand all of what causes a child to act without empathy. When our children are born they are "very close to our hearts." [That is as long as our brains are functioning correctly] A very sad fact is that there are many mothers and fathers that see some of their children behaving very much differently than their other siblings.

There are disorders caused by biology and psychology that we know of and can see the symptoms, but we do not understand these disorders completely. As we advance in neuroscience and psychology we will start to understand some things we never could understand.
It is sad when you know that these kids have no control over their biology and yet they will suffer from sociaty because of it.:detective:

Sorry to say ..you are babbeling. You don't know my age. You don't know my deeper reasoning. You jump to conclusions.

Some kids are born with disorders, and therefore their child/parent relation may be disfunctional, or the other scenario, one is raised with strong moral and ethics, therefore such philosophies can overwrite the instinct of child/parent relation.

Why would you state that I do not know you age. It is a true statement but I am not sure where you are coming from. please explain.

You assumed the role as interviewing me with a barrage of questions, and repeatedly would ask the same question. Then in your final post relating to that internview you would have that journalist smilie, as if conclusion on our interview.

That's why.

In China last year, it was reported that soliders and policement who would execute criminals would suffer trauma doing their office.

Also in USA where in past time it only befell 1 person to execute, he would get traumatized, later befell a panel of executioners to collectivly push a button, therefore noone takes the guilt alont of taking the live.

However, I don't know the situation about doctors giving the lethal injection.

Not only will it often be slave like conditions, but also cause unfair competition towards other companies. With cheap labour they can outsell any other who has to pay expensive hires to union people.

I know that it is very unlikely, but if you mother lost her mind and killed a bunch of people, would you think she should be put to death?

What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother if you have voted for it?

Well, I dont really get it, I guess its because I understand that im not the killer if the decision was taken by someone else, but perhaps many people dont.

Well with the proper administration it should be possible to prevent the work of prisions from interfering with the standart economy.

As I mentioned earlier, it has been proven many times, that innocent people has been put to death, it's that uncertanty that destroys the executioner when they find out, they have put innocent people to death, innocent person who had families, children who now are without a parent, who will cry ..such thought often destroys minds.

Such as?

As I mentioned earlier, it has been proven many times, that innocent people has been put to death, it's that uncertanty that destroys the executioner when they find out, they have put innocent people to death, innocent person who had families, children who now are without a parent, who will cry ..such thought often destroys minds.

Such as?

But it wasnt them, it was the state. I dont understand why they fell guilty if it wasnt their mistake.

Having each prision produce something different to keep the impact in the market minimal, or, the opposite, having all prisions produce the same thing and let that area be theirs.

Well, I dont really get it, I guess its because I understand that im not the killer if the decision was taken by someone else, but perhaps many people dont.

Well with the proper administration it should be possible to prevent the work of prisions from interfering with the standart economy.

Probally not, a person who merely lost its mind certainly can be recovered, or at least continue to live (and possibly work) under surveilance.

Wanting it or not, we do suffer with fear, disgust, shock, etc, then we see the blood and the dead, specially if we are the ones to cause it, even if it is unlogic.

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is severly skitzofrenic. An executioner IS the state when he execute, it IS his hands who are doing the deed, he is doing his office as the state! ..thereby he feels the guilt.

Yes, yes, this is good intentions ..but I have to ask once again, such as?

Leaders, be it in politics, buisness, warfare ..or anywhere else, are often struck by delusional thinking, where it may be the good intentions which rule their thinking. Such delusional ways is very terrible as it will most likely produce idiotic resulsts. These leaders will demand his employees to carry out his delusional thoughts.

And I'v worked under such kind of leader who lived in a dream, woh would get degradated from CEO, who would throw his ENTIRE wealth away. The sad thing is, he refuses to get professional help, but blames it on bad luck.

I think deliberate killing can only be justified in self-defence. This principle can be extended to justify killing enemies in wartime, and killing someone who is about to engage in a shooting spree in a shopping mall.

However, in a modern society, we have other ways of protecting ourselves against convicted murderers - and in many cases (crimes of passion) it's not clear the murderer is necessarily likely to kill again. So, we have to consider other reasons for the death penalty - deterrence and retribution. Deterrence may work in some cases (most likely murder associated with robbery etc) but not others (crimes of passions or terrorism). Retribution is a strong motive - and if the state does not allow relatives and friends of victims to obtain retribution there is a danger they may revert to old-fashioned revenge killings resulting in feuds (which is why the state took responsibility for justice in the first place). Islamic justice allows for this in a way which has some attractions.