Death Pentalty?

Question

Death Pentalty?
I would like to hear arguments for the death pentalty. So is anyone for the death pentalty and why?

Answer 1

I think the state goes down to the same level of a murderer when it applies death penalty.

"You killed so I'll kill you back"

It doesn't make a whole lot sense, plus it goes against the BofR clause against of cruel and unusual punishment.

Answer 2

Will if you have 12 people find you guilty an give you the death pentalty why as a tax payer pay 50,000 a year for a walking dead man an let him set on death row for 20 years come on that is dumb so lets clear death row out an crime will drop.Did you know the USA has the highest crime rate in the world why because the crooks know the courts are a bunch off gutless bastards

Answer 3

Death is a harsh word that brings pain to those that suffer it and know someone that has suffered it. It can swoop across land and dominate over thousands. It arrives as a small full and grows to a deadly plague. People find it OK to make others suffer death as a consequence but think that it is unreasonable when they suffer it themselves.
Death Penalty is a harsh and in-humane way to deal with things. Lets say that you are playing with a toy and your friend breaks it, you outraged, you pick up an Axe and chop off his/her head. Dosent sound that human to me does it to you?
Now I know that crimes arent just little things like that, but you get the idea.
In some places you are be-headed just for believeing things that others dont think are true.
I read something the other day that a lady saw her husband off to work and when he didnt come back for 2 days she got woried. The police found him with the skin peeled from his face and words carved in his chest that said "those who believe the wrong against him, he will send his worker to do his bidding".

Well the main Idea is that maybe you shouldnt be so quick to jump.

Answer 4

I am 100% for the death penalty, but I think that it needs to be changed. It does not serve the purpose for which it was intended which is to deter people from committing the same crimes over and over again. The reason being that we pick and chose who we are going to put to death and we give the criminals more rights then the victims they murdered. I think if we start putting people to death for crimes of murder and any crimes against minors we would see a decrease in these acts. I mean really we spend most of our taxpayer money on death row appeals and these people spend years and years sitting in jail getting appeal after appeal and never getting put to death. I dont think it is fair that we have to put the families of the victims through that over and over again. Just kill them and move on. I know it seems harsh but todays society is harsh and if we dont start trying to do something to get it under control we are going to be in for a very bleak future.

Answer 5

I'm not. I'd rather see 10 guilty people rot in prison than 1 innocent fry in the chair. Too many mistakes are made by the court to actually condemn someone to death. And due to the length of life, it's much more psychologically damaging.

Answer 6

Death is a fair penalty for those who commit such a crime that there is no other alternative. If someone were to kill your child, your mother or your father, how would you want them to pay? With their life, of course. Personally I think that the family should be able to deal with the guilty. Even if it were a rape, how would you feel if it were your daughter?

Answer 7

properly statistically that's greater on your funds and much less of a burden on the taxpayer to not impose the dying penalty, what with the court docket expenses and limitless appeals. some think of that's erroneous to kill everybody regardless of circumstances and that killing a individual is resorting to a shameful act equivalent to the criminal. i've got additionally heard that we are too more suitable of a manner of life to ought to motel to the dying penalty as that's barbaric. besides the undeniable fact that can we surely ask a sufferer's family members to experience a similar way? it relatively is ordinary to declare you oppose the dying penalty in case you have by no skill lost somebody close

Answer 8

If anyone cares enough to read it here is an essay I wrote about the death penalty for history:

The social issue that I would like to challenge is the death penalty. First and foremost, setting all ethical views aside, capital punishment is unconstitutional, plain and simple. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty also violates the fourteenth amendment, equal protection under the law and due process.
The death penalty has been used as a deterrent and punishment in the United States for more than 390 years when Jamestown was established in 1680. The death penalty still exists in California today, but is it a worthwhile investment? The facts say no.
The average cost of a death penalty case is at least 3.5 million dollars and the actual execution costs2 million dollars. Now compare this to the costs of life imprisonment with out opportunity for parole which are unlikely to cost-and may cost much less- than 1 million dollars per offender. The Sacramento Bee concludes that taxpayers could save 90 million dollars per year if the death penalty were abolished tomorrow. And the taxpayers are worried about paying more to keep an inmate in jail for life?
Now ask yourself this: is this death penalty a just punishment for murder? How can we conclude that killing another is wrong, nut the Government killing a citizen is right? The Government does not burn the homes of arsonists, sexually abuse those who rape, we should not tolerate this double standard and allow the government to murder those who kill. Without a doubt, a murderer should be punished, but not by execution. Some people take our safety into mind. They say “a convicted murderer will kill again if he is not executed.” So are they saying if an inmate is in jail for life without opportunity for parole they will kill again? Not likely. Life imprisonment is just as effective for our safety as the death penalty. And what does the death penalty offer us? A sense of safety? No. It gives people a feeling of revenge. Revenge and justice are two different things. Killing a murderer will not bring the murdered person back to life. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.”
Now you might be thinking the death penalty deters crime. Although this sounds reasonable, this statement has never been proven true. According to a survey that took place in 1996, 84% of top criminologists in the country rejected the concept that the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent. Furthermore, studies across the U.S have shown that without capital punishment show no significant differences in crime rates than in the states that practice the death penalty.
Racism is also an important factor of capital punishment. It is awful to think that prejudice is still prevalent, but racism can determine life or death in the courts of California. By eliminating capital punishment in our state, racism takes a back seat in the capital crimes of California. In 96% of the states where observations between race and the death penalty have occurred, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim and/or race of defendant discrimination. If each race were arrested equally (no bias) you would expect to see about 10% of each race on death row, but that’s not the case.
Other problems with the death penalty’s administration, according to the American Bar Association, include inadequate counsel, lack of sue process, racial profiling, gender discrimination, and the execution of the mentally retarded and juveniles. These problems can lead to the sentencing and deaths of innocent people. 114 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, some coming within hours of their execution and at least 23 people have been legally executed in error during this century. Because of the corruption in this system, the death penalty is not longer a viable punishment.
The death penalty is not only unfair; it is cruel and unusual punishment. California currently uses two methods of execution: lethal gas and lethal injection. In the gas chamber, the condemned is strapped into a chair and a cyanide pellet is dropped into a container of sulfuric acid under the chair to form lethal gas. Some of the first indications of cyanide poising are rapid, deep breathing and shortness of breath, followed by convulsions, drooling and turning purple. Unconsciousness may not come for several minutes; if the prisoner is not immediately killed they may experience heart pains, vomiting, and blood changes, headaches and enlargement of the thyroid gland. The gas chamber slowly takes away a person’s ability to breathe, which can be compared to suffocation.
Lethal injection is thought to be a more civilized method of execution (you can’t say that killing someone is humane). The condemned is killed by several injections, all which are more than able to kill on their own. If they are not administered correctly, the prisoner may remain conscious, but paralyzed…an active witness to his or her own death. On one case, the tube attached to the needle in the victims arm leaked and sprayed toxic chemicals towards witnesses. How can you believe that there methods of execution are acceptable in today’s society which claims to be civilized?
The death penalty, in essence, challenges values that we hold dear: that everyone is created equal and that “the value of a person’s life is so great that it is beyond our ability to measure it.” However the death penalty is evidence that everyone is not created equal and some people’s lives have no value. Capital punishment is a constant reminder of a barbaric and uncivilized society. It is immoral in principle, unfair and discriminatory in practice. The application of the death penalty has been legally use din error and is a financial burden to the taxpayer. As a solution for crime is has no effect. The death penalty should be abolished now!

Answer 9

If we've determined someone being at large would be a risk as long as they live, what's the point in spending money to maintain their existence?

I'm not saying kill all murderers, but if someone like Charles Manson just can never be trusted to go free, why spend the money to feed him?

Answer 10

I am for it. If someone came into my home and killed part or all of my family. They better get the death penalty or I would kill them myself and gladly go to prison over it.