Originally Posted by WouldLuv2FightU
People go to jail to protect the rest of society from them, and a doctor gives a girl morphine because he's qualified to do so and knows what dosage to give without causing any harm, both those things are way different than killing someone IMO.
If a guy kills someone because he honestly believed the person he killed deserved to die, and the courts don't accept that as justification, then how is it justifiable for them to assume that HE deserves to be killed?
Doctors give a girl morphine - instead of YOU giving her morphine - because we assume that they know what they're doing, and have put the trust in them to administer it to her, to protect her from well-meaning, but ill-informed (or just plain stupid) individuals from overdosing her.
And just like that, society has given the courts and judicial system the trust that they will, in accordance with the checks and balances, make a good decision. And just like with the doctor, society does not trust the judgement of any individual citizen (however good their intentions) to make summary executions, as they may be anything from ill-informed to just plain stupid.
In both cases, *someone* has to do something deadly, or potentially so. And in both cases, society has said "Huh, we shouldn't trust just any old dude to make the decision. We need someone who knows what they're doing, set standards to follow, and a system that is accountable."
There are probably about a million other things that individuals can't do, that governments can, because individuals have no checks or balances. Writing speeding tickets, driving tanks, killing people, and everything in between.