Who does the concept of "death sentence" benefit?
921603
The purpose of the capital punishment is to eliminate the worst criminals from society. It is meant to be the ultimate penalty and is reserved only for those committing the most heinous crimes of violence and murder.\n\nEach person is given certain rights and responsibilities at birth. It is the individual’s responsibility regardless of circumstance to make the best of life they can. Society in general doesn’t have the resources to rehabilitate even less violent criminals let alone the hardened felons that commit murders monstrous enough to be assigned a death sentence.\n\nThe evolution of the soul is a theory not shared by the general population of the United States. Many believe that evil exist and is beyond rehabilitation. It may be that God can redeem these lost souls, but it is obvious that it is beyond modern man’s skill and technology. Society is better served by simply eliminating these convicted murders from all chance of ever repeating their offenses.
194962
No, it is a good thing.  It is much better than giving them a lifetime of freebies.  The law-abiding have to pay for their food, clothes, medical care, everything they need.  Why should a murderer get all that, and in a lot of cases even more, free for life?\n\nAs for what the families of the condemned "go through" too bad!  Did the killer think about what the victim's family will go through?  The killer made a decision to murder.  The victim's family has to live with that decision. The murder victim had to die a horrible death, the killer gets a nice, peaceful one. The killer gets to say his "tender goodbyee" to his family and gets a last meal before being turned off.  Has any murder victim ever been given a chance to say goodby to their families?  Or a last meal?  I highly doubt it.\n\nAnd at least with the death penalty, that ensures 1000% that that killer will never do it again.\n\nEdit - chris42050:  So, you think the murderer should get to live his life, getting to have visits from his family, (does the murder victim's family get to visit a live person?  Or look at a cold tombstone?) getting to lounge around all day, getting free food, free clothes, free medical and dental care, free cable, free internet, etc?  And you cannot even compare the "suffering" of the murderer's family to the suffering of the victim's family. As I said, at least the murderer's family gets a chance to say "goodby" while the murderer is still alive. Keep in mind the muderer made a decision. The bottom line is I care more about the victims than the criminals.  And maybe if life in prison was truly a punishment, without all the frills I would feel different, but the cry-for-the-criminals liberals would never have it be that way.\n\nAnd as a side note - I have seen on the news plenty of times when an animal is vicious, it is put down.  So, if a human is vicious, the same should be done to them.
25892
I don't think executions deter crime at all, and I don't know why public executions would make it any better, not least because there is no way to actually force people to watch them. The sort of people who would choose to watch them are the sort of people who wouldn't commit crimes.\n\nCanada does not have the death penalty, and yet has a third as many murders per capita. Also, the United States has a murder rate significantly higher than any of the other first-world countries, all of which don't have the death penalty. Finally, non-death penalty states have consistently lower murder rates than death penalty states.
113512
A sane society kills its maniacal killers. Those on death row are beyond rehabilitation. They are beyond any usefulness to society. In hard labor for life they are a continuing burden on society. How beneficial would it be to still have Gacy, Bundy, et al still alive and in prison? Would you want these horrendous people out in public on a "crab boat" with a chance to escape? Are you for real?\n\nIt would be better to keep the appeals process from going on for 15 years, at the waste of taxpayer dollars.
837329
The Death Penalty is a harsh sentence, the harshest that society can give, but I support it.\n\nIf a person killed 15 people then how can his one death pay back that crime?  Why don’t we kill him 15 times!  You can medically induce a heart attack and then bring them back with a defibrillator.  Of course this would be cruel and unusual punishment and it would be illegal according to the 5th amendment.  The Death Penalty has been challenged several times in the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being cruel and unusual punishment, it has been upheld each time.\n\nI have mixed feelings about the Death Penalty.  People claim that it isn’t a determent to crime; people still murder each other.  I also think that that it is used too often, my state is famous for it.\n\nHowever, the Death Penalty does have some advantages.  It is the ultimate determent for the murder.  John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, will never kill anyone again.  Even if he was given a life term for each person that we know he killed, he would still be a threat to his guards and other prisoners.  What’s to stop him from committing murder in prison?  Are you going to give him another life term?  That wouldn’t be a determent.  And if he should escape then he will go back to murdering people again.  However, if the Death Penalty was a possibility then he might think twice about committing another murder.  We can’t ask him if this is so, because he is dead, and I think that is a good thing.\n\nCharles Manson is as crazy as ever.  He built a “family” and inspired them to go on a killing spree.  Charles Manson wants to do nothing more than to incite hate and violence.  To that end he has had a tattoo or brand of the Nazi symbol placed on his forehead.  If he escapes from prison there is no doubt what he will do.  He will start another “family” and send it too off on a killing spree.  Manson has even said he will do this.  If he were dead, killed by the Death Penalty, then that wouldn’t be a threat.  As it is we have to keep him locked up for the rest of his natural life.  He is a threat to his guards, other prisoners, and a continuing threat to society itself.  We can’t kill him though because he didn’t go on the killing spree himself, he only inspired it.  Meanwhile I have to spend my tax money to help support him for the rest of his natural life.\n\nThe Death Penalty has its advantages.  It is something to hold over prisoners.  If they murder another prisoner then they could have to face it.  It also prevents us from supporting a prisoner for the rest of his life.  That’s a cruel fact, but true.  It will also prevent a murderer from ever killing again.\n\nWhen the Death Penalty is applied it should be done so only as a last resort and under special circumstances.\n--  First a higher standard of guilt should be met.  The jury must be sure, beyond a SHADOW of doubt that the accused is actually guilty.  A murderer can be convicted if beyond a REASONABLE doubt the jury considers him guilty.  A higher standard should be held for the application of the death penalty.  Just how stringent that standard should be is up to the Judge’s instructions, and the jury.  Also our legal system is based on the idea that we would rather not convict 100 people, if that means convicting 1 innocent person.\n--  Second the person should be considered a continuing threat to society.  A man who finds out his wife is cheating on him and then kills her, may not be a continuing threat to society (unless he gets married again).  He may be unstable and should be sentenced to a long prison term, but I don’t think he should be subject to the Death Penalty.  The ultimate penalty should only be applied only to people who are likely to murder again; preferable only to people who have committed multiple murders and proved that they will kill again, if given the chance.\nIn some states there is another condition that can cause the Death Penalty to apply.  In New York it is call
158902
Once a murderer is executed, they WILL NEVER hurt anyone ever again. No possibility of escape.  The death penalty give the victim's family peace of mind.  It's hard to think that the murderer is still alive when your loved one is dead because of that monster.
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.
803111
Hitting a child teaches violence.  Therefore it isn't a effective punishment.\n\nThe death penalty is effective since the person who is executed is no longer around to commit crimes.  However, I do not support the death penalty because there is always the risk of convicting/sentencing the innocent.  The chance of putting innocent people to death isn't worth it.
949305
It's called the right to fair trial and it's enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. \n\nAnd your argument doesn't wash. There is no death penalty in Western European countries, yet they all have much lower crime rates - both violent and non-violent.
13803
No, it does not make us a better nation ,but, if properly utilized it may create a safer nation! In reality we do not utilize capital punishment as very few convicted criminals are ever sentenced to death, and even, when sentenced to death, automatic appeals prevent the timely execution of criminals.  Therefore, capital punishment is not a deterrent.  How strange that people rally to prevent the execution of murderers but demand the right to continue killing more unborn babies. Here in the US we have "legally" sacrificed more babies, numerically, than the individuals exterminated by the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler. Yet we dare to call ourselves a moral, civilized nation. If we decide to give capital crime offenders life imprisonment without the possibility of parole maybe we should at least require that life be given to inutero individuals, unless the life of the mother is at risk.
662212
With recent advances in DNA technology, they have been able to retest crime data from inmates who had received life sentences.  The study I had heard (you should do a search on the internet) is that 25% of the cases tested prove that the person convicted of the crime was innocent.  \n\nThen there are economic issues associated with the death penalty.  In theory we would think that putting someone to death would be cheaper than making them stay in prison for life.  Sadly the opposite is true (do a search for exact numbers).  The system is so overwhelmed with appeals, etc that we end up paying a lot more money to put someone to death than to keep them in prison.\n\nThen there is the fact that America spends more money on the prison system than on libraries.  We are a country focused on punishment for crime, but not teaching people the way to avoid a life of crime by being a productive member of society.
138358
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, traditional teaching does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.\n\nIf, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. \n\nToday, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
24795
No.  However it can seem harsh for certain types of crime such as drug smuggling, and therfore its application is a little extreme. Unfortunatley the pendulum has swung a little to far with respect to the application of the death penalty in Singapore. Other countries, such as Canada, that do not have the death penalty should consider it for murder and attempted murder. Here the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction. There has to be a balance so that a justice system, in any given country, is just. Meaning that the appropriate punishment is given for the crime.  Unfortunately, opponents of the death penalty fail to understand this simple principle.
183879
It would help curb *senseless* crime if it were actually used when it should be. What kills me is the "life without parole" sentences - if that prisoner can never be rehabilitated, what use is (s)he?
849705
For certain crimes, I believe it is beneficial.  I won't start a big rally here but if you look at countries and states that have capital punishment in place for violent crimes, their crime rates are incredibly lower than ours.  Eye for an eye......sorry.
646985
No death sentence.\n\nLife in prison or not, the sentence should make him repent what he/she did and his/her painful life (not physical) should be an example to people not to commit crimes against humanity.
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.