Why do we kill people that have murdered someone to prove to everyone else that killing is wrong?

Question

I was just woudnering about this question. I watch the news at night and they talk about how there gonna give someone the chair for murdering someone! I just don't see how anyone is learning there leason! Its just one big killing cycle!

Answer 1

I think it is more like trying to keep someone off the street because they are an awful person who would just go out and murder again if they were let go.

Answer 2

I know over 1/3 of the states still have capital punishment. DNA testing has cleared many on death row. To me killing is killing is killing as murder by a citizen or by the state. I believe it was the outgoing Rep. Gov. of Indiana, who after having some deathrow inmates found innocent by DNA, commutted all death sentences to life. The 4 leading countries in the World for executing their citizens are China,Saudi Arabia,Iran, & the USA. Nice civilized club to belong to what?. Most advanced nations have abolished Capital punishment. The last in Canada was in 1960 and there has been an overall decrease in murders. It is a condition of becoming a member of The European Union that you do abolish it. I am opposed to it, because it is a deliberate cold blooded, planned and rehearsed taking of a life of a human being. Another point to think about, especially in the US, the other 3 are totally hopeless, is equality under the law. Can you guarantee that a poor black man in Mississippi , charged with murdering a white woman will get the same level of defence as say,
O.J.Simpson? I know the answer. So if for no other reason it should be abolished nationally as all people are supposed, according to the Constitution, be treated equally. If someone tells you that you are going to be killed on a certain night & at a certain time, 2 months down the road, and that is not cruel and unusual punishment?. What I do believe however is violent prisoners should be kept in a max prison and everyone should be allowed DNA testing if appropriate. None violent crimes should be handled by other means such as house arrest, ankle bracelets, community service and making restitution. That way you can clean out a lot of prisoners. And for God's sake lighten up on Pot.
Just a little dig in fun,CUBA has abolished it. Actually, child abuse and molesting is considered one of the most serious crimes and can get you 25 yrs. Far cry from the good old days under Batista what?

Answer 3

The Death Penalty is a harsh sentence, the harshest that society can give.

If a person killed 15 people then how can his one death pay back that crime? Why don’t we kill him 15 times! You can medically induce a heart attack and then bring them back with a defibrillator. Of course this would be cruel and unusual punishment and it would be illegal according to the 5th amendment. The Death Penalty has been challenged several times in the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being cruel and unusual punishment, it has been upheld each time.

I have mixed feelings about the Death Penalty. People claim that it isn’t a determent to crime; people still murder each other. I also think that that it is used too often, my state is famous for it.

However, the Death Penalty does have some advantages. It is the ultimate determent for the murder. John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, will never kill anyone again. Even if he was given a life term for each person that we know he killed, he would still be a threat to his guards and other prisoners. What’s to stop him from committing murder in prison? Are you going to give him another life term? That wouldn’t be a determent. And if he should escape then he will go back to murdering people again. However, if the Death Penalty was a possibility then he might think twice about committing another murder. We can’t ask him if this is so, because he is dead, and I think that is a good thing.

Charles Manson is as crazy as ever. He built a “family” and inspired them to go on a killing spree. Charles Manson wants to do nothing more than to incite hate and violence. To that end he has had a tattoo or brand of the Nazi symbol placed on his forehead. If he escapes from prison there is no doubt what he will do. He will start another “family” and send it too off on a killing spree. Manson has even said he will do this. If he were dead, killed by the Death Penalty, then that wouldn’t be a threat. As it is we have to keep him locked up for the rest of his natural life. He is a threat to his guards, other prisoners, and a continuing threat to society itself. We can’t kill him though because he didn’t go on the killing spree himself, he only inspired it. Meanwhile I have to spend my tax money to help support him for the rest of his natural life.

The Death Penalty has its advantages. It is something to hold over prisoners. If they murder another prisoner then they could have to face it. It also prevents us from supporting a prisoner for the rest of his life. That’s a cruel fact, but true. It will also prevent a murderer from ever killing again.

When the Death Penalty is applied it should be done so only as a last resort and under special circumstances.
-- First a higher standard of guilt should be met. The jury must be sure, beyond a SHADOW of doubt that the accused is actually guilty. A murderer can be convicted if beyond a REASONABLE doubt the jury considers him guilty. A higher standard should be held for the application of the death penalty. Just how stringent that standard should be is up to the Judge’s instructions, and the jury. Also our legal system is based on the idea that we would rather not convict 100 people, if that means convicting 1 innocent person.
-- Second the person should be considered a continuing threat to society. A man who finds out his wife is cheating on him and then kills her, may not be a continuing threat to society (unless he gets married again). He may be unstable and should be sentenced to a long prison term, but I don’t think he should be subject to the Death Penalty. The ultimate penalty should only be applied only to people who are likely to murder again; preferable only to people who have committed multiple murders and proved that they will kill again, if given the chance.
In some states there is another condition that can cause the Death Penalty to apply. In New York it is called Special Circumstances. If the crime was especially heinous and awful then New York considers it a crime worthy of the death penalty. The decision to try and apply this penalty is up to the District Attorney’s Office, but the jury should be the ultimate panel to decide if the Death Penalty should be applied or not.

I also think that a death penalty should raise an automatic appeal. This is done in most states, but the appeals process is limited. A case can only be turned over if there was an error committed in the trial. If some rule was broken, or if a procedure was violated. The person cannot be re-tried and new evidence cannot be introduced. I think that the judges should be given more liberal standards. They should be able to weigh new evidence or examine anything that sheds a new light on the case. The case should also be reinvestigated. This doesn’t mean that old evidence has to be recollected, but it should be gone over and checked to make sure it was collected and handled properly. This review should be done by a state official independent of the first investigation.

I don’t like the Death Penalty, and I think that it should only be applied in rare circumstances. However, there are some murderers that warrant this kind of punishment. These people need to have that penalty available to protect society.

Answer 4

I don't have an exact reason why, I don't think anyone does. Everyone has different opinions on whether the death penalty is right or wrong, that's why it is so controversial. It is hypocritical, but at the same time, if we don't put murderers to death, how do we punish them? Well, the other option is putting them in jail for the rest of their lives, but our jails are overcrowded and thats expensive. So what else can we do? Also, many times, murderers have antisocial personality disorder(sociopaths) like Ted Bundy and there really is no cure or help for them.

Answer 5

I think if they start killing more people that have murdered other people, there would be less people killing. They would at least think about it first. Now, they kill someone and get to sit in a cell all day, get free food, free air, free tv and so on. How is that punishing them? Make the consequences more extreme. They deserve it anyway. They should have not killed someone in the first place. If one of your family members was killed, would you want them to kill the person that took your mother, sister or brother's life? Or would you rather them sit in a jail cell, eat free, sleep free and everything free? While people that work for a living is paying for all of this. If you work, you are paying for the person or someone like him who killed a innocent person for no reason. Or for 20 dollars. Whatever they claim their reason was... I don't think it's right.

Answer 6

at least the person that got the chair ,went threw the legal system and was found guilty with evidence .
what about the dude he killed did he even get that .
do you think we should just put him behind bars and let him continue to kill inmates that are in there for nothing more then writing a few bad checks while were paying for his housing , dental work and exercise equipment that's making him even stronger. it ain't like even a second grader doesnt know the pentality for killing somebody , they made their choice when they murdered.

Answer 7

The answer lies in Human psychology, we always want bad things to happen to bad people, In bad people we include many kinds of which one is persons who murder innocent people.. By punishing them we try to tell the world TIT FOR TAT! If you do bad , bad will happen to you, In that also we have categories we kill those people whom we think to be unlikely to show any improvement in behaviour ( of course this judgement need not be correct but it is so) & for others we give them jail for 14 or so years ( in which the doers probably die by themselves) So finally " we kill the murderers to frighten others that if you kill others we'll kill you & everyone fears death so most people dont take a decision to kill anybody"

Answer 8

you touched on the answer in your question. they wont learn their lesson by getting killed. people who the courts think will learn their lesson dont get the death penalty. for every person you hear getting killed on death row, hundreds get just jail time, or reduced sentances from death to jail time. only the people who are viewed as repeat offenders get killed because no amount of jail time is going to change that persons mental capacity for murder. most of the people who are killed have a mental disorder that prevents them from living in society with out a risk to the population.

Answer 9

Your question carries a profound moral debate, which has yet to be resolved. Personally, I believe in the death penalty, subject to some stringent guidelines. For me, it has always been a cost benefit analysis and whether the individual who faces murder charges belongs in our society. Sometimes we have to do what is best for our society.

Answer 10

At that point it isn't about anyone learning anything. It's about removing a dangerous predator from the population.