Is death sentence rightous or cruel?

Question

It punishes not only the criminal, it also punishes their parent, spouse and children perhaps for the rest of thier life.

It is irreversible if new evident poit out that it was a mistake.

The victim's family was hurt, so now is the time to kill another to hurt another family. that sound evil...

Its not cruel to isolated criminal from society as compared to death sentence because there is a change for a person to achieve inner liberation.

To great extent criminal lost their humanity in the society, not when they were born, thus society somehow are link to the criminal's action and has the responsibilty to keep him alive under isolation.

An eye for an eye will keep on in endless cycle of hatred and keep human race in bondage.

Only compassion will change the entitle human psyche gradually in a positive way, hatred will bring it to another direction.

Answer 1

It is cruel and barbaric.
It is ineffective as a deterrent.
It is nothing more than a way for society to feel better about tragedies.
It is applied unfairly based on race.
It is morally repugnant.
It is an embarrassment to any nation that purports to support human rights.
It is inevitable that innocent people will die.

Answer 2

The death sentence is neither righteous or cruel. However, it is the most cost-effective method of dealing with society's most violent offenders.

The death penalty doesn't punish the parent, spouse and children of the offender - the offender did that when they chose to violate the law in such a violent manner.

Personally, I think the offender should be kept alive, in custody, for the rest of their lives, just so that they would have to be tortured by the thought of what they had done and the freedom they lost as a result of their misdeeds. However, I also agree that this would be unbearably expensive, and I don't want to pay for it, nor do I want society as a whole to have to foot the bill. If I were able to make the legislation, I would require that the criminal have to do something that would foot the bill of their incarceration or that the family would have to support the individual. But that, as you say, WOULD be a punishment to the offender's family.

So, in leiu of a perfect world, I guess I do agree with the death penalty, because there's no other reasonable option for dealing with these people. Anyone who takes a life obviously doesn't value their own.

Answer 3

It is a tough question, and no doubt we need to make sure we are using the technology we have such as dna testing to make sure we have the right person. If this testing is taking place, then it is less likely to find fault. Whether or not it is cruel, for me, depends on the way they are sentenced to die. I think it's rediculous people are fighting to say lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. The righteousness of the death penalty tends to be a moral dilema, but morality shouldn't be a factor.

Lastly, I do get frustrated when society turns the criminal into the victim (not that you are doing that). It happens all the time and it's a shame.

Answer 4

You're right -- capital punishment punishes the friends and families of the criminals, but that's one distinction that needs to be made: You're talking about a criminal here. This person broke the law, and murderers as a rule don't have people holding guns to their heads saying "Kill this person or I'm going to blow your brains out." People who kill CHOOSE to kill, and people who believe that they have the right to arbitrarily end another person's life pose a threat to society. There's no way we can be sure that a murderer will never kill again. Many people say they "snapped" or it happened "in the heat of the moment" -- how do we know these people will never snap or find themselves in the heat of the moment again?

The central issue of capital punishment is not closure for the families of the victims, it's not an eye for an eye, it's not justice, and it's not deterrence. We're talking about what's best for society -- how do we ensure maximum liberty and safety for John and Jane Q. Public without placing an undue burden on them. Imprisonment for life is an undue burden -- the American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for criminals to watch cable TV (yes, they are required BY LAW to have cable, and they don't have to pay for it) to surf the web (another thing they don't have to pay for) to work out (the equipment is provided solely at the taxpayers' expense) and not to learn their lesson from a system that is geared hopelessly toward rehabilitation -- which studies have proven does not work.

You're also right when you say you can't bring a dead man back to life if new evidence proves he didn't do it. That's why I say go back and review all the cases of criminals on Death Row using the technology we now have available. If the evidence exonerates them, let 'em out. If it proves they did it, then tell those cons to roll up their sleeves. Once those cases have all been reviewed, the chances of anyone now being mistakenly convicted of a crime in this age of technology are so remote that it's next to impossible, so no worries there.

I'm all for capital punishment, and I believe there should be a mandatory death penalty for anyone who kills a police officer in the line of duty -- how can we be safe from criminals who kill those who serve and protect us?

Answer 5

What I can't understand is how someone that has been convicted and sentenced to death, gets to live 20 more years in prison, lawyers provided, appeals go on and on, the victim's family suffers more...etc. If they are convicted, I say right then, take them and be done. Sorry, that is just how I feel. Yes, it is awful for their family, but it is also awful for the victim's family. They will never have closure or peace no matter what. As for the criminal's family, I feel for them too, but I also think how would I feel if my family member committed a heinous crime. I think that would hurt me more, knowing that they had hurt someone else, than the fact that now they had to pay for what they did. Just my opinion.

Oh and how many times does new evidence come around that proves their innocence? Not very damn often.

Answer 6

Yes is does punish them, but what about the person they murdered? That family suffered and why should tax payers pay for a murderer to have three healthy meals a day, a roof over their head, good health care and they not have to do anything but sit there? If a person is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt or has admitted to killing another person, yes the death penalty should be there and not 20 years after the crime. It takes to long and I understand a persons right to appeal but something needs to be done so that we don't pay for them to sit there for 20 yrs before being executed.

Answer 7

Look at it from both sides.
If you are a family member of the convicted, then of course you dont agree with the death penalty. But if you are related to the victim, how much sympathy and forgiveness do you think you would have?
As far as new evidence coming to light, Im thinking thats why it takes years for someone to actually be put to death after thier conviction.

Answer 8

Get real the death sentence provides a way to riding society of trash. Why feed trash for many years it gains nothing. Trying to go soft on crime has never gained but only exposed innocent people to more abuse. Too bad for the families but they have their own lives to live and getting past the realities of the criminals acts is better than having to live with them.

Answer 9

I am completely for the death penalty. I believe that if you don't value someone else's life, then why should anyone value yours. If it's so simple for these low-life, waste-of-space, frickin' ignorant murderers to kill someone, why should they be able to have their life? What about the victim's family? What justice are they going to get? The person who murdered their loved one is still breathing, still thinking "yeah, I got it easy", and WASTING our money by living in prison for god knows how long! And then what happens when/if he or she makes parole? What, are we just going to let them back out into society and HOPE that they've been rehabilitated and HOPE that they don't kill someone else? Why take that chance and make some other innocent family suffer?! Like I said, if you don't value someone else's life, I hope to god that the judge that sentences you DOESN'T value yours!

Answer 10

Its is righteous. Death sentence kills you immediately, and a life time in jail kills you slowly. Also it is better economically. Life sentence cost so much more money. Also life in jail punishes parents, spouse and children also. There are usually never new evidence. The world of crime detection does not opperate like in CSI or Cold Case.