A boy was extremely upset that his father was murdered. He took justice into his own hands and murdered the offender. Unfortunately, this is breaching the confines of the law for this victim (the boy) and now will create for a very complicated court case. The death penalty can only be carried out under proper conditions and with a fair trial before-hand determining this punishment. This boy who has killed his father's murderer has breached the murderer's right (as a U.S. citizen) to a trial and fair judgement under the law, a prosecuting attorney, and a jury of his peers.
No matter if your for or against the death penalty, it's wrong. Obviously, if you oppose the death penalty, killing someone as punishment, even in a murder, is wrong. Thing is, the person he killed was not convicted of a crime that would be punishable by death. This means he had no legal justification to put him to death so not appropriate.
The appropriate thing for the boy to do was to let the courts handle it.
Obviously, this person had major mental issues. It is one thing to kill someone who has killed someone you know and chopping them up into 12 pieces and scattering the parts. Not that this qualifies him as insane because he did it in an attempt to avoid punishment so he had the mental faculty to know right from wrong. He just didn't care.
For all we know, the person he killed had family as well. Would it be acceptable if they killed him for killing their family member? If anything, more acceptable because, due to his confession, he is known to be guilty of the crime.
This is not appropriate punishment, and it certainly doesn't bring back the boy's father. The boy was only three when his father was killed, and it sounds like the accused killer was actually in jail for the murder, and was out on bail. From reading about this, it sounds indescribably brutal, and witnesses, and police officers were shocked by the brutality of the killing.
No, the boy's murder of his father's accused murder is not appropriate. We do not live in a lawless society, and an eye for an eye does not work here. You can't punish a person for an act by committing the same act, especially when the accused has not been convicted yet. Our justice system may not be perfect, but it works when allowed to.
No, the son of a murder victim who took revenge into his own hands by killing and dismembering his father's accused murderer is in the wrong. Only a judge and jury should have the ability to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused criminal, and even the state should not be carrying out executions.
Because you say that the man was his father's accused murder I assume due process had not run its course and the man has not been proven guilty so I must say no it is not a just punishment for the boy to kill this man as we don't know he was the real killer.