Over the last few days this is pretty much all I've been thinking about. We're covering it at the moment at uni and I'm writing an essay on it. It's also been in the papers recently that more and more people are coming round to the idea of it. So my question is, do you agree with it? Do you think its right as a form of punishment and that people deserve to be executed for breaking the law? My view on this is that the death penality is not justified and people's motives and thinking behind it is purely emotional and based on retribution. Some people say that people who have murdered and done awful things deserve to die for what they have done, its a valid point. However, I stand by the saying that 'two wrongs don't make a right', this is essentially saying that because someone else committed the abhorent offence of taking someones life we should carry out the same act ourselves. Another arguement for capital punishment is that it has a deterrent impact on society. I believe this is not the case, most offences (such as murder) which are liable to be punished by death are not pre-mediated and so the offender is not thinking of the consequences at the time of the act. Also, countries and states that have the death penalty are those that have the highest homicide rates. Take the state of texas for example, they have executed in excess of 400 convicts and they have the highest homicide and crime rates in America. However, I struggle to argue against cases such as religious fundamentalist terrorists who have killed 100s or 1000s of people and feel no remorse and would gladly do it again. Obviously I believe for life imprisionment for crimes such as murder but what good would that do when the person feels no remorse and would not be rehabilitated. Its definitely a tough topic, I'm sorry for the wall but its something which I feel passionate about.
i agree with having a death penalty in some instances like some one who murder 100s of people like you said but just 1 or 2 murders or rapes they should get life cause to me sitting in solataire confinement for 50 or so years is way worse than death imo make it worse to have someone come in there everyday and tell them how wrong it was.
If they've ruined someone's life, and would gladly do it again for entertainment, then I'd say go kill dat sumbich
I'm split on the issue. One and two murders OF older people are ok I guess, if the guy has an illness, but if you rape an 8 year old and then kill them, then I think the death penalty suits very well. and the reason states with the highest death penalties have the most homocides may also be that since there are so many homicides, the death penalty is used more often on them. the death penalties may cause the homicide or the homicides may cause the death penalty. Its a two sided coin basically.
i disagree with it. Cold blooded killers should be humiliated and killing them lets them off. Why nnt keep them alive with bare minimum necesities with no communication. Expensive but justice served
I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, there's the fact that it's probably the worst torture imaginable to be told you're going to die in a certain way at a certain time on a certain day and until then you're locked up. No even if you're Hitler do you deserve that. On the other hand, prisoners could be used as extremely cheap labour to do things that would waste a lot of tax payer money. Simple tasks of course.
Our prisons are overcrowded and taxpayers money go so that these murderers can have televisions, basketball courts and other bullshit luxuries. Also do we really want to run the chance that someone will bail them out or they escape and could go on to hurt innocent civillians? Either way I suppose our system needs some radical changes but then again that won't happen because our system is basically a giant money magnet fro those involved with it.
Another argument for the death sentence is that people on death row and the lethal infection cost a lot of money. However, I think we have to question a society mindset that decides on whether a person loses their life or not on how much they cost to keep alive.
Thats why hanging is so much easier to do. Too bad they can't get rid of the cruel and unusual punishment part or change it to not include hanging. all that requires is a rope and a tree. just push them off a branch.
The Death Penalty is good as long as it is enforced well because soom people sit on death row forever. Here in Canada most people who kill someone get life with a chance of parole at 25 years and I think that is letting killer off way to easy.
Its a subjectivee thing I think, 25 years imprisionment for some people is more than enough to rehabilitate someone and for others they will always be capable of horrid acts, no matter how severe the punishment. A good alternative, in my eyes, is life without chance of parole. It removes the liberities and freedom of the offender, removes them from society and some would argue that life in prison is much worse than execution. Also, to answer dimmest's suggestion of hanging people. Sure the actual act costs less and some would say more humane but the actual court and appeal costs of a death sentence costs much more than keeping that offender in prison for the rest of his life. It costs something like $27 million more than usual for a death sentence case, that more than covers the cost of keeping someone alive in prison. The only reason people support the death sentence is for revenge, retribution. They want people to die for what they have done, my problem with this is that its the same act(murder) which causes people to want offenders dead so essentially, supporters of the death sentence are wishing the same act on the offender which they are detesting so much. Its contradictory, savage and just plain wrong imo.
What about when you get the wrong criminal? Do you just go "Oops" and move on? Also, the death penalty is another word for state-legalized murder.
The death sentence is honestly one of the more just systems of punishment. The thought of living the rest of your life imprisoned is far worse than death. Not to mention that it can be much more cost efficient on a whole; simply put, it is cheaper to kill a man than to keep him fed and clothed for the rest of his years (depending on how much litigation is done during the time). But, the real argument here is which morals are the correct ones? Which is so ambiguous that it almost doesn't matter what you say because it is a belief, not an idea. If you go with the old moniker an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; then clearly murdering a murderer is fine. However if your beliefs fall under the Christian moral code, then you should turn the other cheek to those whom do you harm; as forgiveness is the most important aspect of that religion. So, what I say is that this debate is defunct because you are asking people to prove that their beliefs are the correct ones; when in actuality there is no way to do so. As well, take in to consideration that a single human life is of no value, only all of humanity is. So really you can argue this any way you want without reaching a legitimate consensus. And there is my two-cents... Sarge525
Why not give people a choice? Death Penalty, or 25 - 50 years in prison. (Psychotherapists try to "Cure" them of the reasons they do something that gives them the death penalty.)
People will choose to live, costing the government Thousands of dollars, if they deserve to die. THe initial human instinct is self-preservation, so no one (unless they are suicidal) will choose death. If you give a mentally deranged man 50 years in prison, he will return to normal life when he is old to what point and purpose, even if he is mentally stable, would he want to live? You took away his whole life.
I'm not sure about giving offenders the choice of their punishment but I'm going to state again that a case which is liable for the death sentence costs alot more, on average $27 million, than keeping someone in prison and feeding them etc. A death sentence costs $27 million more than keeping someone in prison due to the extra court costs and the actual act of killing someone, whether it be lethal injection, electric chair etc. This is due to the fact that there is 4 courts of appeal and groups of judges who decide whether the jury's verdict of death sentence is correct. Heres another arguement against capital punishment. Prejudice and discrimination occurs in the criminal justice system today, thats a proven fact. Black people are at least 4 more times likely to be convicted of a crime than a white person, especially if the defendent is a woman, and just as likely to be given a more severe punishment. Meaning that its possible, and has been proven, that a black convict could recieve the death penality where a white person would have recieved a life sentence and thats down purely to the prejudice of the jury/judge. Thats not right and it shouldn't happen, in my opinion.
A bullet is only a few dollars. Bring back the firing squad and hanging. My state still has hanging as its execution :]
The fact that you put a smiley face implies that you take pleasure over your state's method of execution, am I right? I hope my country, England, don't have a referendum on this topic because it seems we have a lot of mindless idiots like you that don't seem to take this seriously. However, whilst I don't agree with the death penality I do agree that if its carried out then a bullet to the back of the head (common method in china) is probably the best way.