The death penalty: are you for or against?

How about you get me stats on how many extra unnecassery griefing people there is from the death penalty?? The only positive thing that can be said about the death penalty is that the executed will never be able to commit a crime again. I don't think its worth it for that reason alone.

 

The only positive thing that can be said about the death penalty is that the executed will never be able to commit a crime again.


And I will disagree with this part, as it is the government's role to take care of its populace, and if that means putting to death those that are judged by their peers to be a menace to the good of society, then so be it.

Here is a link for you concerning your rehabilitation theory.

 

How about you get me stats on how many extra unnecassery griefing people there is from the death penalty??

Sure, as soon as you get me the stats about the grief murderers cause.

As I have said, the murderer didn't have to kill anybody. The grief he brings upon his friends and family are his own choice. The victim had no such luxury.

 

How about you get me stats on how many extra unnecassery griefing people there is from the death penalty?? The only positive thing that can be said about the death penalty is that the executed will never be able to commit a crime again. I don't think its worth it for that reason alone.

1. I think the grief of the victims families need to be addressed more than the grief of the murderers.

2. As for preventing further murders. I find it ample justification for the death penalty. How would you like to explain to a mother that her child had been killed by a convicted murderer who could of been executed but was spared so he/she could kill again.

The trouble with all the do-gooders in society is that they put the rights of criminals on a par of those of law abiding people.

 

Maveric... that's pretty scary. I can't believe a program like that was ever implemented. I'm so glad it was done away with.

 

"Sure, as soon as you get me the stats about the grief murderers cause.

As I have said, the murderer didn't have to kill anybody. The grief he brings upon his friends and family are his own choice. The victim had no such luxury."

Quite simply, two wrongs never make a right.

"1. I think the grief of the victims families need to be addressed more than the grief of the murderers."

I'm confussed. Is their grief not equal? Is the families of the murderer not innocent of the crime? Why should they have to suffer because of someone elses mistake?

"2. As for preventing further murders. I find it ample justification for the death penalty. How would you like to explain to a mother that her child had been killed by a convicted murderer who could of been executed but was spared so he/she could kill again."

The only people he/she would be able to kill are fellow inmates, if even. And when they finally get out of prison, there is always the chance that the murderer has been rehabilitated. There is no telling what an ex-criminal could achieve once back in society. There is a risk, of course. Its up to the system to not get it wrong, and lock the murderer up for his/her entire life if needs be.

 

Put in the most simple terms

Murderers are not worthy of life

 

Ah, of course. How silly of me. *rolls eyes*

 

I'm not completely for or against it. I think it may be overused, but there are some cases where I feel it is necessary.

I think we can all agree that killing in self-defense is justifiable. That being the case, answer this: if it is acceptable for you to kill someone to defend your own life, how sacred or precious is the life of your assailant in that moment? And is his death at that point in time is justifiable, at what point does his life suddenly become valuable again? When he ends yours?

 

A parent would discipline their kid if they do something wrong, and a criminal must be punished. If the family is sad about their member?s wrong doings, then maybe they should have done something about it.

If say my mother did commit a cold blooded murder rampage (you don?t know how ludicrous this sounds to me) I would be sad if she was killed by the state, but it would still be well a deserved punishment.

I find it funny anytime a crime happens, and they say how many signs there were that the person would do it, and then the relatives say "I can?t believe it." What, were they, blind?

I think that the death penalty is slightly overused in some ways, and underused in others. It needs a bit of tweaking, but it should not be gotten rid of at all.

 

"I think we can all agree that killing in self-defense is justifiable. That being the case, answer this: if it is acceptable for you to kill someone to defend your own life, how sacred or precious is the life of your assailant in that moment? And is his death at that point in time is justifiable, at what point does his life suddenly become valuable again? When he ends yours?"

I would say when innocent life is no longer in direct danger is when the criminal shouldn't be killed.

 

I would say when innocent life is no longer in direct danger is when the criminal shouldn't be killed.

Actually killing someone is far worse than just endangering their lives, but somehow the sanctity of human life kicks back in once the act is committed? If an individual can be justified in taking a life, then surely the state can. Once you've made an attempt on a human life, you've declared open season on yourself.

 

"Actually killing someone is far worse than just endangering their lives, but somehow the sanctity of human life kicks back in once the act is committed? If an individual can be justified in taking a life, then surely the state can. Once you've made an attempt on a human life, you've declared open season on yourself."

Killing the murderer AFTER the act of murder has been committed won't change a thing. An individuel isn't justified in taking anothers life unless their life is in direct danger, thats why we punish criminals. But, the unjustified murder of a human being doesn't give the state the justification to kill another.

 

the unjustified murder of a human being doesn't give the state the justification to kill another.

The point is not whether killing after the fact will change anything. If someone shows a blatant disregard for another's life, then he has no right to his own. You can't regain your right to live through taking someone else's. For endagering a life, you can die, but for taking one you should live? That doesn't work.

 

The reason why it is acceptable to kill a person who is endangering an innocent's life isn't for punishment or justice sake, but to SAVE a life. After the act, there is no longer a person to save, therefore killing the person ceases to be acceptable.

 

So what if a murderer excapes for a prison and kills again and is recaptured? At that point, he has shown he is still a threat to society, even when locked up. What about then?

I am not saying we should kill criminals of what they might do, but for what they have done, like in that case above.

 

Lock him up in a more secure cell or prison.

 

Once you have him locked up, someone has to pay for him. To feed him at least. Someone also pays to keep prisons running, and to build more when they are needed, all because we are keeping alive people who are dangerous to themselves and others, and would be dangerous inside or outside of jail.

 

Then build concentration camps where the sole purpose is to kill all the inmates!!

God, i'm beginning to think thats what you guys want. I know prison doesn't seem to deter criminals, but its the best thing we have short of sacrificing our own humanity to get rid of them. Until we come up with a better system than prison, we will always have to build mroe and more prisons and pay for their living conditions.

 

There is nothing inhumane in executing murderers. They give up their right to life when they unlawfully take a life.

 

Until we come up with a better system than prison, we will always have to build mroe and more prisons and pay for their living conditions.

The irony. This may come as a shock to you, but there is a better system. It's called the death penalty.

No building more prisons for murderers and paying for their cable. Why?

Because they will have ceased to be.

 

"They give up their right to life when they unlawfully take a life."

Who made this rule? You? A judge? The president? God??

Lets make it apply to the animal kingdom aswell. Any lion who kills gives up its right to life. Any bear who kills gives up its right to life. How rediculous does that sound?

 

Why are we just refering to murderers?

Anyone else think that some drug delaers should face the death penalty?

 

Who made this rule? You? A judge? The president? God??

Lets make it apply to the animal kingdom aswell. Any lion who kills gives up its right to life. Any bear who kills gives up its right to life. How rediculous does that sound?

I was stating an opinion. I apolagise for not making it clear.

However comparing humans to animals is pathetic. A five year old could see the diference. I'm not going to justify your arguement by argueing back.

 

Why not people that drive cars and smoke? After all, the car fumes make our environment all crappy, thus killing people, and second hand smoking kills too. These people forfeit their right to live!!