Death Penalty, is it right or wrong? Options

[*ECD & C0*]

I like the "eye for an eye" concept - you kill, you're killed

exactally

[Smoogrish]

Yes. If they kill, they get killed. And there's no use detaining them for a lifetime sentence.

[NoSex]

The Paradox of the Death Penalty: If even a single innocent person has been put to death, and killing an innocent human being is murder, all those who support the death penalty are guilty of murder, and thus deserve to die.

The death penalty is a barbaric practice. It denies, poisons, and takes away from our humanity. We want peace. We preach to our children that it is wrong to kill. We value human life. But, we turn around and kill those who kill our own. We become hypocrites and monsters. There is no usefulness to capital punishment. It does not deter crime. It doesn't bring anyone back to life. It doesn't solve anyone's problems. It only ends another human life, and for what? To satisfy deep seated rage and hatred felt in the family and friends of certain victims? How animalistic, primal, and inhuman is that?!

And, to argue that this is justice is a joke. First of all, that different laws, judges, juries, and lawyers are involved in each individual case fails to make the death penalty ultimate justice. Many people have been put to death for less, and others let free despite more. This isn't a science. And, that we do not hold the same exact standards to each offender, we can not say that each case has served everyone justice. The value of human life is far too great to leave one's fate up to the responsibility of men. The impracticality and arbitary nature of our justice system should be enough to deny the death penalty.

But, still... can you honestly say that it is right to take another man's life, even if they pose to you, or anyone, not a single threat?

[Spirited Away]

The Paradox of the Death Penalty: If even a single innocent person has been put to death, and killing an innocent human being is murder, all those who support the death penalty are guilty of murder, and thus deserve to die.

And because we are speaking of "If's"... If a killer is paroled and kills again, all those who are anti-death penalty are guilty of allowing more innocents to die. Though it is nice to imagine that every state practices life without parole, the reality is that a quite a number sentence these killers to life with possibility of parole. Texas for example, after 40 years, those who committed capital crimes are eligible for parole. There are other cases where killers walk earlier than that. Until life without parole becomes law, I will still be an avid supporter of capital punishment, but even then, there are other factors to consider.

The death penalty is a barbaric practice. It denies, poisons, and takes away from our humanity. We want peace. We preach to our children that it is wrong to kill. We value human life. But, we turn around and kill those who kill our own. We become hypocrites and monsters. There is no usefulness to capital punishment. It does not deter crime. It doesn't bring anyone back to life. It doesn't solve anyone's problems. It only ends another human life, and for what? To satisfy deep seated rage and hatred felt in the family and friends of certain victims? How animalistic, primal, and inhuman is that?!

Why is the death penalty the easy way out? For whom is it an easy way out? Again, if I were the mother's victim, death to the child rapist/killer is the ONLY way I'd want it to be. The kill doesn't make his life worth less than my child's? Are you sure? Actually, it puts him in the category of guilty and with my child being innocent, I'd say he is not worth the life of my child. So, yes, it does make his life less worthy. Between guilty, and innocent, which is more deserving of life? Between humanity, and no humanity which is more deserving?
You are justifying the crime when you say he deserves a second chance. You're basically saying that the crime he committed isn't that bad.
HAH! Again, I don't understand how you could say that it's the easy way out. Death is final and I rather like finality to someone who caused me that kind of pain.

But you know, even if it is taking the easy way out, I'd rather have that, too. I'd rather take the easy way than give the killer an easy life.

Murder IS primative. The killers commit the murders, they are primitive. I don't see you calling them that.

We teach our children that it is wrong to kill, but we also teach them that every wrong must be accounted. We teach them crime and punishment. We teach them that in a society, we have certain responsibilities. Murder and the death penalty are not the same, and to say that it is hypocritical to teach against killing yet support the death penalty, you must prove that they are the same... I will most gladly wait for that argument.

We value humanity, not inhumanity. I don't understand how killing a cold-blooded killer can mean inhumanity. Animalistic would be killing the killer in the same fashion that he killed or subject him to physical tortures. But no, we sentence them to the most humane death as possible. And as I've said before in this thread, we do not send the semi-guilty to death, we send the very, very guilty to a lawful death.

And, to argue that this is justice is a joke. First of all, that different laws, judges, juries, and lawyers are involved in each individual case fails to make the death penalty ultimate justice. Many people have been put to death for less, and others let free despite more. This isn't a science. And, that we do not hold the same exact standards to each offender, we can not say that each case has served everyone justice. The value of human life is far too great to leave one's fate up to the responsibility of men. The impracticality and arbitary nature of our justice system should be enough to deny the death penalty.

But, still... can you honestly say that it is right to take another man's life, even if they pose to you, or anyone, not a single threat?

In the same logic with life without paroles then, many people have been sentence to life without paroles for less, and others let free despite more. There is no perfect justice, but for those who committed the highest crimes, the highest justice must be served, else, there is an imbalance of justice. The fact is that if a killer is proven guilty with one court and is sentence to death, he/she have many chances to appeal, which supports fairness of judgement. Judges do not have much to say about the final verdict as juries are the only ones who can decide on the killer's death.

The value of human life is great, but if we do not leave our fate to men, then who do you suppose we turn to? God? Someone or something that knows higher justice than man? Who? If we do not understand practicality and rationality, then how can we say that life without parole is the more practical or rational than the death penalty? Or how can we ever say for certain that our laws are just? And if they are not, why do we submit to them?

Lol, I'm probably the LAST person you'll see using religion to support my opinions. Whenever I do mention God, I'm only humoring the people who DO use religion to back their beliefs, like things concerning abortion, gay marriage, & stem cell research, since they think that God has to be involved in everything.
That's what I was saying. Before we decide to end another life, we should think about keeping that person in prison for life without any parole, ever. I mean, duh, of course they're going to be a threat if they're let back out into society after doing a little time. But how on earth do they pose a threat to society if they're locked up in a little cell & are never let out? Unless they're geniuses & they can formulate a plan in secret to escape these high-security prisons.. & Doesn't it cost more for capital punishment than locking someone up for life? I'm not too sure about that, because I've also heard the opposite.

Then you'd understand why I responded to mydaisyeyes in that manner.
Again, it is ideal to sentence a killer to life w/o parole, but the fact is that not all states practice it and killers do walk after "rehabilitation". And, do you really think I enjoy the fact that my hard earned money helps to feed these killers?

If I were the victim's mother, you really expect me to want my money to pay for my child's killer's counseling? Really? And even now as a tax payer for the last 3 years, do you think I'm comfortable knowing that my tax money is going to give a child rapist/murderer a chance to be acquitted so he'll have the chance to go at it at someone else's baby? You think I'm comfortable with knowing a killer is eating, watching cartoons when a child could have had that chance? Really?

[Melissawilson5]

Yer I think there should be a Death Penalty because there are some poeple out there who have done some horrible stuff!!

Like Murders who have killed or rapped inocent children they deserve to die because its sickning and who wants them alive on the planet if they hav commited an awful sickning crime in which they can do again...I certainly don't!!

So I am For the Death Penalty

[Trau]

The death penalty is useless as a deterrent, expensive to carry out, and pointless to have on the books.

[sadolakced acid]

facts please, dear sir.

they do tend to make the arguement a bit more intersting.

[Trau]

I'll bother with those later.

[Ington]

The Paradox of the Death Penalty: If even a single innocent person has been put to death, and killing an innocent human being is murder, all those who support the death penalty are guilty of murder, and thus deserve to die.

The Paradox of Opposing the Death Penalty: If even a single person who has killed an innocent hasn't been punished by death, and killing an innocent human being is murder, then all those who are against the death penalty are guilty of murder, as they are supporting the survival of murderers, and thus deserve to die.

It makes just as much sense as what you said. If we're looking at it that way, we're all murderers.

[lollypop036]

ok im a little late on this topic, cuz i just joined a few hours ago, in my opinion death penalty is good, because that person took away one or more persons lives...so why should they still be living??? what right do they have to kill someone?? who the hell do they thnink they are!! life is life, u take someones elses urs should be taken too!!! and after that u can rot in hell u crazy bastards!!(not any you i mean lol..unless youve killed someone that is, but i mean come on, in the uk a life sentence is like 15 years, most of em get out in like 8 years!! and probablly commit a worse crime!

[*ECD & C0*]

im for it. if you kill someone or do something awful, you deserve it! *nods*

yeah its not that hard not to kill someone/do something horrible so don't do it and we wont have anymore problems

[*disco infiltrator*]

The Paradox of Opposing the Death Penalty: If even a single person who has killed an innocent hasn't been punished by death, and killing an innocent human being is murder, then all those who are against the death penalty are guilty of murder, as they are supporting the survival of murderers, and thus deserve to die.

It makes just as much sense as what you said. If we're looking at it that way, we're all murderers.

That doesn't work. Those who oppose the death penalty are not murderers because the base of their argument is against killing anybody. That's not simply supporting the survival of murderers; it's supporting the lifelong suffering of murderers.

[Ington]

But they'd be letting killers live, which says that they think its okay. Its an extreme interpretation, but so is the other.

[doork]

yeah its not that hard not to kill someone/do something horrible so don't do it and we wont have anymore problems

ENDOFSTORY.

[NoSex]

But they'd be letting killers live, which says that they think its okay. Its an extreme interpretation, but so is the other.

Actually, just because someone is against the death penalty doesn't mean that they don't advocate reasonable punishment. Most do. And, most people who oppose the death penalty oppose because they think that killing isn't okay, not because they think it is. Get that?

But, the first paradox holds true. If you advocate the death penalty, you advocate the killing of persons who have been founded guilty under the law. If even one of these persons has been incorrectly sentenced, then you are a murderer of sorts. It isn't so much a literal proposition, so much as it is a cautionary one. It is entirely possible, given the reality of our justice system, that we have put an innocent man to death. When we go to the length of imprisoning him, psychologically torturing him, and commiting the most premeditative form of killing possible (where the victim even knows the time, place, and method in which they will die), we suffer a level of humanity. This person's life is directly within the hands of our legislation, and our courts. You would have to be confident enough that innocents are not being put to death, otherwise, you would be advocating their murder. And, in reflection of your premise (pro-capital punishment), you also would deserve to die.

However, in the case of a prisoner escaping/being let free and murdering other people, that is almost entirely on the shoulders of the prisoner. They are, at that moment, entirely responsible for their actions. I can not be held responsible for his actions, especially when I do not even advocate them. However, when you advocate the death penalty, you are running the risk of advocating something that terminates innocent people. Not to mention, I wouldn't want to see a blood thirsty killer set free, and I highly doubt it happens that often. I'm for reasonable life sentences, without parole.

[*ECD & C0*]

death penalty is a completely justified punishment for criminals who have performed the unthinkable crimes.
yes hammurabis code - eye for eye tooth for tooth

just what i was going to say

[Trau]

Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not Hammurabi, it's from the Bible. And it was meant as a limit on punishments.

[AngelinaTaylor]

Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not Hammurabi, it's from the Bible. And it was meant as a limit on punishments.

Its origins go further back.

[Trau]

The idea, yes, but not the phrase.

[KUBANO]

it costs taxpayers way more money to keep these prisoners on death row awaiting trials than to just keep them in jail for life to begin with

[*Kathleen*]

it costs taxpayers way more money to keep these prisoners on death row awaiting trials than to just keep them in jail for life to begin with

Your source?

[NoSex]

Your source?

I'll cut in:
"According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., the most comprehensive cost study was published by Duke University researchers in 1993. This two-year study determined North Carolina's capital cases cost at least an extra $2.16 million per execution, compared to what taxpayers would have spent if defendants were tried without the death penalty and sentenced to life in prison. Applying those figures nationally would mean $1.69 billion were spent on the 784 executions carried out nationwide since 1976 (in 1993 dollars).[1]"

Costs of the Death Penalty.

Generally, a Capital trial will always cost more than a normal murder trial. Beyond that, the number of appeals and further time, work, effort and preperation (money) spent on inmates on death row far exceed that spent on life sentenced inmates whom have no chance for parole.

[timeflies51]

My opinion is no. These criminals deserve a lifetime of misery, regret, and feeling sorry for themselves. Death is the easy way out.

[*Teenage Mutant Ninja Meg*]

^ i second that!

this is a really hard topic for me to debate.
there are people like paul bernardo (a man who raped two young girls and killed them, all on tape) who i think should be DEMOLISHED.
but, i'm mostly against the death penalty.

let's say we have a gang. one of the members is killed, so another member goes and kills the murderer.
then that member is caught and is sentenced to death.
isn't that basically the same thing as what the criminal did?
people aren't going to learn what's right and wrong if we keep doing the exact same thing that people are being punished for.
wouldn't you rather let the criminal rot in a jail cell (even though we'd be paying taxes for them to eat...)?

thank goodness there's no death penalty in canada.

[twinkles6801]

i think its wrong!
not because i think they shouldnt kill killers, cus they are people, but because killers and other bad people should have to SUFFER! they should have to rot in jail and reflect everyday why they are in prision.
killing them is not fair because they get put out of their misery!