Our ancestors formulated the original rules based on our morals, and the original rules have influenced the current laws. Therefore, the origin of law is morality. If we do not consider morality, one person kills another and the victim dies. Because there is no morality as a standard, our judgments on all murderers and all sentencing should be consistent, because the processes are all murder and the results are all someone died.


However, the actual situation is that we have feelings and we have morals. Therefore, the punishments for manslaughter, defensive killing, or brutal and serious means of killing are different.


The law that judges justice by morality is the law, and the unjust law is a tool for a small number of people to use the law to protect their own benefit, just as slave owners stipulate what slaves should and should not do.

We are all human beings. People all would be selfish. Different people must have different views on life. Different people have different views on the world. Different people have different views on everything. Therefore, in this world, there is no absolutely fair and fair laws.


Law is deeply influenced by morality, so we, as individuals, or even most of us, often judge whether the law is justice or not, often through moral standards. If a law is closer to the moral standards of the general public, then in the eyes of most people, the law is more just. Therefore, we think this is good and can be called good law.

Then what is an unjust law? That is a law that is far away from popular moral standards.

Our laws should tend to ‘protect the victims’. Why should we be inclined to protect the victims for self-interest? Because we think that we will not commit a crime, we do not care about criminals, and can punish, deter, and prevent criminals to the maximum without reluctance. "

"I will feel happy when we encounter a criminal with a heinous crime and be sentenced to death, because I think that there is one less person who may endanger us. If we encounter a criminal with a heinous crime and be sentenced or even let go, I will be angrey because we fear that the criminal or someone like him will hurt me.

In fact, truly brutal criminals, they are not afraid of any threats, and will commit heinous crimes regardless of the death penalty. Rather than being so cruel criminals, they often give up crime because they are afraid of death.


There is a large amount of evidence that after the abolition of the death penalty in a region, vicious crimes will increase sharply, so that the death penalty must be restored after the abolition of the death penalty in some regions.


Others believe that everyone’s life is equal. It’s wrong for a murderer to kill someone. We don’t have the right to deprive the murderer of his life. If we do, we are the murderer. A person has more than one life, he also has many existences, his feelings, his concerns, his experience, his abilities, his contributions, etc. In him, there are other people’s sustenance on him, he Carrying the love of parents, the feelings of relatives, the feelings of husband or wife or children, the friendship of friends, and the mission of the country and ethnic group. A person is an infinite collection.


Then, the murderer killed the victim, not only obliterated the victim's personal existence, but also obliterated the feelings placed on him by his relatives and friends. Do relatives and friends have the right to punish him? I think there is. The murderer wiped out a member of the country and ethnic group. Does the power representing the country have the power to punish him? I also think there is. Enforcers of the law can do their best to ensure that death penalty prisoners are indeed worthy of death. However, what can those who oppose the death penalty use to ensure that no more innocent people will be killed?