Is there a place for the Death Penalty in a civilzed country?

Answer 1

Very complex question

I will just list the problematic areas

1. Is murder as a punishment considered 'cruel and unusual' when it is done in a humane way that causes no pain?

2. Why is it acceptable to murder a criminal when murder, the taking of a life, is considered a crime by society.

3. If you are religious, 'thou shalt not kill' is one of the 10 commandments.

Now with all that said, the question was what do I think...

My mind says:
I think that only God has the right to take a life... that is the bottom line.

My heart says:
If someone harmed someone I love, I would rip their head off with my bare hands after first torturing them.

Answer 2

No. There might be if research showed the death penalty is a deterrent (compared with life in prison). But the research shows the opposite. (Apparently, killers are sufficiently screwed up or pissed off that the difference between the two penalties doesn't have any discernable effect.)

So that means that the death penalty is mostly about satisfying primitive violent instincts of revenge. Which is kind of the opposite of civilized behavior.

So logically, societies that are civilized won't have the death penalty, and societies with the death penalty aren't yet fully civilized.

Answer 3

I don't think so, and I have had family members victimized by violent crime.

I've hurt and hated enough to want to kill someone with my bare hands, and not wait for the justice system to take its course. But in the end we can't let emotion enter the punishment part of "crime & punishment".

I believe it is far greater punishment to have to live with what they've done, minus their freedoms for the rest of their lives. It's cheaper too. Studies show that it has no deterrent effect whatsoever.

Look around, other countries have done away with it. It's barbaric and emotionally based. People who cannot be rehab'ed must be kept out of the general public, I agree. But killing them isn't the answer, especially for a country who claims to hold the higher ground.

Killing someone for killing someone else is just repeating the cycle of violence. Why do you think throughout history they've tried so hard to make no one executioner sure he did the deed? Because it goes against people's moral code to kill another.

The most ardently outspoken opponents of the death penalty I've ever met were very religious Christians, who felt that Jesus would never kill someone, even those who killed him. I admire that part of their religion.

To forgive is divine. To forget is dumb as hell.

Answer 4

Yes.

It can be debated whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent - I believe there's no help for anyone who doesn't at least think twice about committing a crime when the penalty, if they're caught, is certain death.

It cannot be debated, however, whether or not a second offense child molester will get a third chance to destroy another child's life if he is put to death. He will not - and that's a fact.

Answer 5

Yes, from my point of view, the death penalty is ok as long as it is done swift and people aren't forced to pay ridiculous amounts to sit in prison and then thousands to kill them, though I agree it should be painless. Nextly, civilized is a very opinionated term, because ethics are based off of the view of the people and can change over a period of time.

Answer 6

I have always wanted to ask this question but never found a way of phrasing it in such an unbiased way.

This country also claims to be a Christian country with a doctrine of love and forgiveness. Texas for instance that Bush used to administer has a higher percentage of Church going Christians than most parts of America, but have no compunction in murdering and killing in the name of the State. Makes you wonder what other hypocritical stances they hold.

Answer 7

There is as long as there is murder committed in a civilized country.

We need to face facts: some criminals are beyond rehabilitation. They are going to be killers no matter what one does to change that. Taking them out of poor economic conditions, giving them a steady job, stability in their lives, and so on; some will still kill. Why? They are beyond caring. It is a way of life for them. Those are the ones that need to "go".

I think we should try everything possible to rehabilitate first, but if they are beyond that, then I think they don't deserve the "right to life" - they took that right from their victim(s), so why should they be afforded that right?

Answer 8

not only is there a place for it there is a necessity for it for some acts are so inhumane that the only way to get justice is to award victims family's the death penalty for the perpetrator that cased there suffering and it serves as a warning to those that would perpetrate similar crimes to there fate .I honestly believe that the death penalty is far to humane and would not oppose that if the death penalty is applied as punishment then the perpetrator would die in the same manor of their victims

Answer 9

Yes. We just don't do it fast enough. For those of you that hide behind "Tho shalt not kill" David killed Goliath and became a king. God showed great favor to David, even after the death. Killing a murderer is not murder, it is protecting your country.

Answer 10

Not IN a civilized society, but as part of the penal system dealing with those who fall out of it.