Is death penalty the answer for new generations?

Question

"We are killing the killer" if we kill someone, we deserve it too. Or we are trying to sweep what we might call contaminated society.

I don't know .... be honest and you get best answered.

Realize that there are countries where they use Death Penalty for religion purposes ... is that fair??

Answer 1

This is a doozy hard question.

Death penalty is not an answer because we are the killers also, if we condoned the killing of killers. In a way it makes sense for many in our society to live by the rule "an eye for an eye" but in another sense we will turn into the killers, and that's supposedly what we're trying to get rid of?

It is cheaper for the prisoners to stay in prison for the rest of their life, rather than executing them. If a prisoner has a better life among society then prison will seem harsh, death will only make it easier as then they won't be living with the guilt. But if they have a shitty life in the society, then prison doesn't seem so bad because everything is paid for in there and they live as if they never lived before. On the other hand if we kill them, we rid them of guilt and any responsibilities so it seems better to let them “rot” in prison. But yet it goes back to my point about them living an easier life in prison.

So to me, it is a catch 22 for the people involve excluding the prisoner as they are the winners in the outcome of any jurisdiction. Life in prison, or death. This probably doesn't answer the question but actually stir up more issues but I wanted to put in my few cents. =)

Answer 2

The death penalty question is definitely a perplexing one...and has been a heated debate since it was restated in the late 70's...
It is a state by state choice now and each state has had to word their constitution to allow or not allow the death penalty...
One of the biggest arguments is that they kill innocent people on death row which has been proven to be true and is a big travesty...
On the other hand those who commit heinous crimes and show no remorse should get a bigger punishment than free meals and education...
There are several other arguments including the cost of keeping inmates...it's actually more costly to have the death penalty then if we abolished it because of all of the appeals and housing and moving of the inmates and the cost of the injections
as well as letting those who might get the death penalty into the prison populations to kill again...
I still don't know how I'd feel if I was a victim of someone who had done a heinous crime so I really can't say if I'd ultimately support it or not...
as of right now I think there are some ways to help weed out the wrongful deaths on death row and unfortunately it will take a very drastic change and hard work to make an overhaul of our justice system happen...

Answer 3

Although there are many social and political views on the "right vs. wrong" aspects of the death penalty debate since its conception as to time old question
“is it a decent thing to do”..(ie. eye for an eye and are we killing innocent and the quality of the legal representation of the accused)….on and on.

After putting those questions first to the test…what many people often forget about is the increasing cost YET again to the government both at the local and state levels and passing it on to the taxpayers. Many people forget there is a very real cost for putting out this kind of punishment. It is often the thing people have overlooked in the past years.

In Florida the average cost for such type of penalty was for $3.2 million per execution, North Carolina $2.16 million per execution and in Texas a death penalty case could cost an average of $2.3 million, about three times higher than that of the cost of imprisoning some in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

I feel sorry for all involved when dealing with such cases as murder. There are no easy answers because everybody suffers - families suffer, and the taxpayers suffer, and lastly let us not forget the people that guard the facilities that house the accused.
Those are people I feel the saddest for…the guards. Imagine working in a jail as a guard for 8 or more hours a day.

I’ll leave everybody with this last thought….If you don’t teach love, acceptance and respect in the home – it’s often difficult to learn it anywhere else. Perhaps the “new generation” will learn this first at conception and teach it in the home, break the cycles that cause the behavior. Changing the world starts with you.

MMM

Answer 4

I presume the question is from someone in the U.S.A. I say that because the U.S. is the only modern western country that still executes it's citizens. In the other countries, they have found that it not acceptable to kill for sake of killing. Revenge is not taught in schools or churches in the U.S. Also other countries have encountered the conundrum of possibly being wrong and accused is actually innocent. Carry out sentence and then find out what do you do? Say "OOPS" ! Especially in the U.S. where there have been so many publicized cases of death row inmates being released as being innocent. I watched FBI director Mueller being interrogated and he said he favored the death penalty in certain cases. Does that mean for somebody you don't like? What? Skin colour,eduction,wealth,religion or maybe it's just simply heigth, weight or colour of eyes--this last one was used a few times by Hitler on deciding who goes to Auschwitz and who doesn't.

Answer 5

I don't think that the death penalty is a murder deterrant. It might make people more inclined to not get caught, but that simply means that they will become smarter and execute more difficult to prosecute murders. The death penalty only serves (served) one purpose: to protect a society from a killer. Now adays with the present prison system, life in prison does the same thing so the death penalty is outdated.

Answer 6

As an "old man" as my son calls me, from an "old generation", let me tell you, from experience in big city crime, if you don't use the death penalty as a response to crime, the criminals are going to use THEIR "death penalty" a lot more frequently as they engage in crime, and their next victim could EASILY BE YOU!!!!!! A quick history note here for all you "new generationers" or whatever, here. In Dallas, back in the 1960's, there were A LOT of robberies of convenience stores (gas station / grocery stores), and invariably the cashier / clerk would be killed. So one day the Dallas Police Department invoked The Shotgun Squad. Their mission was to stop the murders at these convenience stores, and so, here was there plan, announced numerous times over the radio, television and both Dallas newspapers (The Dallas Times Herald was in business as well back then): If we observe a robbery in progress at a conveniece store, due to the inevitable murders that take place during these robberies/burglaries, the Dallas Police officer will shoot to kill, otherwise known as use deadly force against the robber with their shotgun. IF you are still alive after we are through, we'll ask you why you were committing that crime. The crime rate in Dallas "dropped like a rock" as a result of that methodology. Of course, some criminals, being as stupid as they are, had to die to prove that lawful Dallas citizens were tired of not being able to go to convenience stores without the fear of being killed during a robbery in progress. Ahh, but then there were the liberal, democrats or whatever you call those spineless creatures, who succumbed to the families of the now dead criminals who whined loudly about why the Dallas Police Department was singling out their types and killing them. Dallas's response was, "You quit robbing the stores and killing the clerks, and we'll no longer have to shoot you." Sounds sensible to me. But NOOOOOO!! The criminal community whined all the louder and claimed it was racist, and prejudiced and descriminating that their people were being "singled out" for legalized murder. And guess what. The liberal politicians succumbed to the criminals' ploy, and disbanded the Dallas Shotgun Squad. And guess what happened. Unless you're on drugs or dead drunk right now, you can guess it easily. The crime rate and murder rate skyrocketed the very next day, back to it's pre-Shotgun Squad days. Ohhh, but the bleeding-heart liberals felt better when they could stand on their pulpits in their pristine churches or their political grandstands and say how "loving" and "caring" and "sensitive" they were, and how they stopped the "Mean ol' Dallas Police from killing so many people." Subsequently it wasn't the Dallas Police killing criminals in the act anymore, it was the Dallas criminals killing innocent civilians at their discretion again. So you figure, in these days of self-help gas station/grocery stores, and all the other convenient places to go shopping, do you want to feel safe doing so, or would you like to wonder if, when you step outside the store in the dark of the night, some damn murdering criminal who has YOU in his or her sites, is gonna make YOU tomorrow morning's news story, so common a story that you won't even make front page, or Section A anymore. If you don't believe my story, go check it out yourself. That is, if the liberals haven't wiped out the data so they can feel justified in being "sensitive" and "caring" and "loving" and not "prejudiced", etc.. Just contact REAL Dallas police officers who might remember those days. And you'll wonder why you ever thought of living without the death sentence, whether it's given out in court or in the streets of crime. God Bless you.

Answer 7

Well, if you knew in advance that if you did something you would be killed for doing it. Would you still do it? I think that is the message they are trying to convey to younger generations. Also, while I don't necessarily disagree with the poster that said they should spend the remainder of their lives in prison. My response would be....well who pays for them to remain alive? We do. The taxpayers. Why should I pay for meals and housing for a convicted killer?

Answer 8

I have never believed in eye-for-eye punishment. If someone kills another, they should automatically get life in prison with no parole, so their entire remainder of their life is spent thinking about their lack of respect for other's lives. To kill them, gets them off the hook of their punishment. Although the person they kill is no longer with us, killing the killer will not bring him back, so he may as well suffer.

Answer 9

Yes. Kill the killers.

Answer 10

Its a bit tough this one...I think it does make killers more scared, but I think its what you said: trying to sweep what we might call contaminated society. Not justice.