I am pro death penalty?

Question

I think that the law is pretty clear and it is this:
If you (enter crime here) then you have chosen to forfiet your life by means of the death penalty.
The subsequent commision of the crime is a tacit acceptance of both the law and the penalty.
The arguement of 'it is wrong for the state to kill if it is wrong for the individual to kill" is erroneous.
There are severe enough crimes that cannot be paid for in any other way.
If I steal, I can replace. If i cause hurt, I can pay medical bills. I can pay restitution for many things. But for Death I cannot repay. I cannot fix it and I have coause the society such grevious harm that there is NO penalty other than death that is just.

What do you think?

In response to Mr. Psycology, I would like to state that in the past centuries, the death penalty has a mainstay sentence for many more crimes than just murder and treason. And in all that time, there were no rampant children killing their partents and schoolmates as we see here in america.

In order for a punishment to even have ANY effect, IT MUST BE WORSE THAN THE CRIME (OR AT LEAST AS TERRIBLE).

SEEING THAT THERE IS NOTHING WORSE THAN DEATH, IT IS THE ONLY JUST PUNISHMENT FOR MURDERERS!

ALL punishment has an element of revenge built into it. ALL punishment! so get over it when it comes to the death penalty or else be consistant and be against ALL punishment!!

Answer 1

I can guarantee that no executed serial killer EVER came back to repeat offend!!!

Answer 2

You talk of restitution but the death penalty is not restitution. It is closer to an eye for an eye. This way of thinking dictates that a rapist should be sexually assaulted (and then let go, I assume). Or that when a criminal injures another and causes the injured person to loose his arm then the criminal's arm should be cut off.

The goals of the justice/legal system in the USA are not clear either. Should the goal be:

REVENGE/PUNISHMENT - you did something bad, so now the state will do something bad to you. There is one group that this will certainly not dissuade - no amount of potential punishment will ever stop someone on a suicide mission.

RESTITUTIOIN - you cause harm to a person or property, so now you should make up for that as much as possible with financial restitution. But money can not compensate for some things. If you shoot someone in the spine any they loose the use of their arms and legs, no amount of money can truly compensate for this. Killing the shooter also can not compensate for it.

REFORM - The state should help someone who has done wrong become a better person so that they can rejoin society without causing further harm. But does this happen? If someone gets sentenced to 10 years in prison, they may leave prison a harder, meaner person than when the entered. In some cases, a prison sentence may increase the chance that a crimminal commits additional crimes.

PROTECT SOCIETY - Remove criminals to a prison (or kill them) so that they can not harm society.

DETER CRIME - The idea is that fear of the consequences will prevent crimes. But people who commit crimes believe they will not get caught. Who says things like “I’m almost certain to get caught but I’m going to do it anyway”? At some point the possible penalty likely reaches a maximum effect. Is the death penalty really much more of a deterrent than life in prison or 20 years in prison for someone who thinks there is little or no chance of getting caught? Certainty of getting caught would be a much bigger deterrent than severity of punishment.

Other things to consider are how much money does society want to spend dealing with criminals and what types of government spending are most effective in reducing crime? And, what about the cases when an innocent person is convicted of a crime? When it is discovered that an innocent person is put to death, haven’t the prosecutors, judge, jurors, and police officers involved essentially committed a crime - a murder - so now they should be put to death too?

Answer 3

We're the only major nation that still uses the death penalty though. The rest of the civilized world considers it 'cruel and unusual'. So it isn't a question of interpreting the law. It's a question of constitutionality of the law itself. There was a time when this country had the institution of slavery as well. So there is precedent for abolishing the death penalty.

The issue is that it is irreversible. New discoveries, DNA for example, years later show the innocence of convicted people.

If we could be 100% sure a person was guilty, then it would not be such an issue, I suppose.

Answer 4

America is a civilized country? Not so, we and other 3rd world countries have the death penalty. It is proven that the death penalty does not discourage crime. And only certain murders get the death penalty. This is purely a revenge. I've asked others who believe in this Middle Ages type of punishment, if innocent people die from this would it bother them. They said "no". If you believe in this law that makes you no better than them. A killer murders and innocent person and they don't care, people who like the death penalty don't care if innocent people die. Similar thought process. Happy killing.

Answer 5

It's an interesting debate. My main issue with prison itself is that it just promotes violent behavior, rather than effectively correcting bad behavior. It also costs way too much (like 20k per prisoner per year). I think the death penalty should exist as an option, but should be exercised unless in the most extreme of cases. Also, precautions should be taken, such as a unanimous jury decision, verification by the governor, etc.

Answer 6

I feel that death penalty is the easy way out for someone. But then again if they stay in jail sometimes thats no soo bad either so i feel that in the US we should do like other countries and make the people who commit crimes suffer, by choppin off their ear or hand or foot.....i feel if we do such harsh punishment as that, then we would see less crime because people would be afraid of getting caught if they have to suffer the consequences of losing something valuable.

Answer 7

I respectfully disagree. The old law "Eye for an eye" is widly considered barbaric. You claim that it is ok for me to pay with my life if I end a life...so then if I blind someone, I too should be blinded? It is certainly an issue with many sides, but I cannot coutenence any crime being so bad that it justifys murder.

Look at it this way. If ending the life of another human being is so bad that it justifys the death penalty, then, in a way, doesn't that argue AGAINST killing them?

Answer 8

So that person being brutally murdered will erase the crime he committed? Sorry, I don't agree with you. Murder solves nothing. Why do you think there are so many minors in court right now for cold blooded murder? Why are kids murdering their parents? Because the government is setting the prime example, that if a person does something bad, it's okay to murder them.

I don't care WHO they are, or what they did; no one has the moral right to legally put someone to death. Besides, they would suffer more in prison. When you kill them, you kill their brain as well, so they'll basically be put out of their misery.

Ridiculous... What century are we living in.

Answer 9

I agree with you ,but I want all rapists to be in jail for 2 years and everyday recieve 50 lashes, and than after the 2 year period that person is put to death. They put there victim in a mental jail and alot of hurt, so let them feel pain also.
Sorry some people may disagree with my idea but why should we house, cloths and feed those people and than allow them back on the street in less than few years.

Answer 10

The death penalty is looked upon as barbaric in todays more peacefull society. The truth is, it is NOT a deterrent to crime. The criminal will commit the crime regardless of whether they are taking a chance of loosing their life. I WILL save the taxpayers billions of dollars in incarceration of known murderers. It takes about 45 to 50 thousand dollars a year to incarcerate an inmate. It cost 60 thousand dollars to enforce capital punishment (death penality). So...20 + years X $50,000 dollars a year versus $60,000 in one pop. Economically, the death sentence is a winner, Morally, the death sentence is objectionable.

Answer 11

so you show killing is wrong by killing?

society as a whole must be more moral than individual desire for revenge (which is all the death penalty caters to)

and what if you execute an innocent man or woman? How can you take THAT back?