What's wrong with the death penalty for people that are undeniably guilty of murder, etc?
365631
To ponder:\nIF killing is wrong, we should always set the example, even with people who have violated this basic principle.  It will strengthen that rule.  Maybe not today, not tomorrow, but eventually.\n\nUS is the only country at our level of social development that has the death penalty (as oppposed to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Thailand)\n\nOften, executing an unremorseful killer will make him believe he is a mayrter to his misguided actions.\n\nIt costs more to execute a criminal than to keep him in jail for the rest of his life.\n\nThe application of the death penalty in today's justice system is a crap shoot, at best (Sentenced to death rarely correlates to those most deserving of it, and being spared rarely translates into being less culpable)\n\nJust a few things to ponder, why it might be worth it to get rid of the whole messy business!
1057321
I don't agree with the death penalty aspect of it. \n\nThere's no way the death penalty should have even been on the table considering Peterson was convicted with purely circumstantial evidence.
9990
I agree with you there. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.\nCheck out the link below & help to protest.
605331
state some facts like the amount of innocent people put to death. the biases that the courts have in handing out death sentences(race, etc...)Playing god. morality of it\nI feel its done to save money. ...easier to kill someone than to pay to keep them in jail the rest of their lives.
1089367
I don't believe in the death penalty. They are just commiting murder, and two worngs never make a right. God decides who should die at what time, so I think you are right, they should put him in jail for life and make him suffer for the pain he has caused people.
78682
The principle here is not that they are able to kill people but for what reason. The execution of a known felon who has him/herself murdered countless lives has forfeited his/her right to live under the eyes of the law. If he/she were to be set free and thus cause more deaths on the population it is justified to take his life for the general good. They are against violence, random and senseless violence that is. Sanctioned killings whereby a person has commited crimes deemed irreconcievable in the eyes of the community is not a crime nor hyprocracy but justified and necessary. As for war it depends on the reason, to the defence of life and country it is a noble cause, for an outster of a regime not friendly to a country that is selfcentered hyprocracy for a nation that cherishes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
807581
The reason is not to show that killing is wrong.the purpose is to show there is a debt to pay for your actions. you pay with your life. all murder is wrong,[ murder ]and the courts will kill you for it.[hence the death penalty]
222060
I am against the death penalty as it does not make any solution. When we are giving a person death penalty, we are doing the same bad thing that we can't. Nobody has any right to murder other, the final judgement is in hand of God. That we can do maximum against a criminal is to give him/her an imprisonment for several years.
946781
Because they have committed horrific crimes. They have demonstrated that they are not fit to live. There will always be issues as to who does & doesn't deserve this ultimate penalty. I think anyone who rapes and murders deserves death. Those who do this to children, I'll volunteer to throw the switch myself.
11518
I don't believe in the death penalty; I mean who are we to play God like someone said. But the thing is; he was convicted and there was no doubt that he was guilty. He was also sentenced to death and I think that if we change the laws because one person said sorry; then others would do heinous crimes and be like "I'm sorry" and expect to be let off. \n\nI don't even know much about what's going on in his case but that's what I think.
32268
I am absolutely against the death penalty, in all cases, no matter what the offender did, who the victim is, and so on.\n\nWe punish murder because we think (as societies) that murdering is wrong. So, we cannot simply kill a person just because this person has killed! That is plain revenge, not justice! It is doing to them what we're criticising them for doing! Remember this: "Do as I tell, not as I do"?\n\nLeave alone killing other criminals, who aren't killers themselves. In that case, we're doing to the offender something much worse than what they did in the first place.\n\nAnd what about people who are innocent? What about the political use of the death penalty? What about the fact that most of the victims are black or Latinos, poor and powerless? Don't Anglo-Saxon, wealthy and powerful people commit crimes? And even if they didn't (which is not true), doesn't anybody wonder what makes poor people commit crimes, in the first place?\n\nAs long as the death penalty is legal anywhere in the world, we're no better than animals. At least, they only kill when they're hungry. Humans make the state kill on our behalf, only because we are a very cowardly species.
167985
I think is a little extreme.But then again a life time penalty makes someone suffer much more.By killing them they only realese them
704827
In some parts of the US, they have capital punishment. In those places, certain murderers are condemned to be executed by the state. There are two commonly cited reasons for this. First, public knowledge that a death penalty exists and can be administered is supposed to deter would-be murderers from killing.To say it in the easy, first-person way- If I know that I could get punished with death because I kill someone, that will theoretically make me hesitate to kill a person. Secondly, the people of some states are of the opinion that it is less costly to execute a convicted murderer than to keep that person in prison for life, but the calculations as to the cost-efficiency are not conclusive.  The expressed attitude seems to be that once a person has killed, that person cannot be trusted not to kill again and must be removed from society.\nIn actual practice, the families of murder victims frequently talk about seeking closure, saying that only the death of the murderer will bring them peace.  That seems like revenge to me. rather than a noble social aim.  It is pretty insensitive of me to even discuss such matters.  Can I declare myself morally superior to others and say that it is wrong to seek revenge? I have no such right.  I can only say that the desire for revenge is the driving force behind much of the violence in the world today. I can only say that if we could get away from the idea of revenge, many violent acts would not happen.\nI would like to give one last bit of food for thought: when humans act alone and independantly, we do not always take the time to fully justify our morality, but when we act as a society- by making laws- we need to have morals that we can explain.\nThank you for asking an important question.
899454
To answer your question and to refute the genius who compared captial punishment to abortion:\n\nThe fact is, yes, there have been far too many instances where people have been put to death then later found innocent.  Our judicial system needs to put policies in place that will prevent this from EVER happening.  But generally, if a person, without a doubt, has been convicted of a malicious crime, they should be put to death.  How sane is it to allow someone who raped, tortured and killed a young girl to sit in a jail cell and live off taxpayer money?  If that individual feels someone INNOCENT deserves to die, why should they be allowed to live?  Again, I believe there should be WITHOUT a doubt concrete evidence against a person who is put on death row.\nAnd concerning abortion...unborn babies have not committed heinous crimes.
1097642
i agree with eye for an eye, the only downside is if they are innocent then they are being punished for no reason, then again innocent people get executed even in our society... some people have been executed only to find out later that they truly were innocent... if the crime was prooven then yes I think thats what should be done!
1056715
NO!\n\nA mentally ill, mentally disturbed, or mentally handicapped person should be treated no differently than the rest of us, if they are a criminal.\n\nHere's why:\nA murderer kills a bunch of people, including little children. His lawyer says he is mentally unstable. He does not get the maximum sentence, in fact the judge orders him into a psychiatric ward instead of prison. Then, another person kills a bunch of people, and his lawyer isn't smart enough to use the "insanity" loophole. He gets the death penalty.\nHow is this a fair, consistent, just system?\nHere's another little tidbit for your brain to chew on:\n\nIsn't EVERY serial murderer, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY rapist, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY armed robber, terrorist, or assassin, by definition, unstable?\n\nEvery immoral criminal act is a sign of psychotic or sociopathic tendencies. So, why have prisons? Why not release everyone with a doctor's note? Execute all the murderers, retarded, insane, underage, you name it. Make the system fair. There's no reason why one murderer should be executed while another one goes free on a bullsh*t technicality.\n\n"But, I don't know the difference between right and wrong!"\nSo? How does that excuse you from consequences?\nDOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU EVEN MORE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS??? HOW IS THAT A GOOD THING?\nBeing ignorant does not make you innocent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's what the law says. It should apply equally to everyone.\n\nWhat do you do with a dog that doesn't know better than to viciously attack humans? You put them down. That's all there is to it. Save the innocent, punish the guilty.
734764
Then you are as guilty as the actual murderer.\n\nThe system does not work that way.\n\nEach crime has to be proved or disproved on it's own evidence. If we executed people just for being bad, them who knows what crimes we as a society might do next? We might even invade another country because of falsified evidence, just because we thought they were bad. That could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, each of which could be considered a murder.