No because
- it's not a deterrant
- it is a barbaric form of punishment
- most other countries have given it up
- except third world countries like iraq and iran
- we shouldn't give them the satisfaction of death
- it's the easy way out
- we, as human beings, do not really have any say over another person's right to life whatever the situation
- and after all God says, Thou shalt not Kill.
Stronger punishments and worse sentences are not going to do the rest of society any good. The focus should be on providing organisations that help the mentally ill, desperate, poor and helpless which are often the states of mind these criminals are in. If these people are 'sick', they should get well.
It's not about letting them 'get away with it'. It is about stopping the cycle of abuse and crime. Research and studies have proven this, time and time again, but people get carried away by popular media witchhunts and things like the 'moral decline of society'. But funnily enough, nothing symbolises that more than an attitude of blame and original sin.
What would be better would be years of confinement and punishment. That would be worse than death.
2006-12-16 00:19:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I knew that this question would get a lot of replies. In my opinion I feel that they should allow the death penalty. I feel that it should be based on the crime as to weather they should use the death penalty or not? For instance, if you kill someone I don't feel that you need to be put to death because you took a life because there is such a thing as man slaughter. If it was self defense or done by accident that shouldn't be reason for the death penalty.Now, of you go and murder a family while robbing their house and just don't want witnesses so you feel that you should shoot everyone then yes. Especially when it comes to someone who has done it before because for them, they will continue and why take some innocent life.That is a tough question because there are so many negative results in the matter and believe it or not there are many positive ones as well. Unfortunately, the prisons are so over populated and maybe if they do enforce the death penalty some people would reconsider murder based on the consequences. Knowing they won't be able to go and have free meals and a place to live and watch t.v and exercise etc. That is just my opinion and I am sorry if some of you disagree .
2006-12-16 08:24:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by ws_422 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I believe, as a society, we need to balance between the interest of the individual and the interest of the society at large.
Keeping death penalty is a deterrent, to some extent.
Terrorists can even get out of jails by hijacking and such acts, if they know they won't be hanged. And this is against the society's interests.
If a good legal system exists where death penalty is given only in the rarest of rare cases, justifiably, with proper recourse to legal remedies, it is alright.
If there is a miniscule chance of error, we should accept that in the interest of the society. After all, the rules of the game are the same for all, and known to all in advance.
2006-12-16 08:12:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by ebistart 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
People are judged all the time. Without being able to "judge" if a person has committed a crime, there could be no legal system, leading to Anarchy.
Judging a person who is guilty of murder is all the more important. Would you wish for a world where a person who killed your loved ones could not be proven guilty? If you could not judge them, this would be the case.
The death penalty is just the logical extension of "live by the sword, die by the sword". Why should we expend our resources to keep such vile people alive?
2006-12-16 08:10:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Eric K 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Tough question. I believe some people's crimes are so morally reprehensible that they have no redeeming social value. And while I cherish human life dearly, I don't believe people who commit such horrible crimes as to warrant the death penalty should eat up societies resources sitting in prison for the rest of their life. I'm in favor of the death penalty because it is crazy to warehouse these monsters for years and years and tax payers expense. In some cases, I'm sure they are living more comfortably in prison then they did when they were free.
2006-12-16 08:09:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Some Like 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
No, I don't think the death penalty is acceptable from a moral perspective. Revenge doesn't accomplish anything except more pain (what about the families of executed inmates?).
2006-12-16 09:53:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by iloveeeyore 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, I believe in the death penalty.
And of course we are allowed to judge people for the crimes that they commit! Can you imagine living in a country where there is no punishment for crime?
The death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits his own right to remain alive.
2006-12-16 08:31:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't beleive in it, Thou shall not kill and that means anyone.
And we are not the judge, that position is reserved for Jesus, vengence is the Lord's.
Killing people, any people is a devaluation of human life and it promotes facism and racism.
By the way, noone knows EVER if they will GO" crazy and lose it and kill someone---IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE< ANYTIME
the poor are the only criminals sentenced to death, ever see a rich inmate get killed?
2006-12-16 12:39:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by eg_ansel 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that decision should be left solely to the family of the victim. After a conviction ofcourse. I think the public forgiveness of the man who killed the dutch girls was very commendable but I don't think everyone should be held to everyone else's standards. Some people just need to feel "back in control" after something happens to shatter their life. And although executing a murderer doesn't really put them back in control I think it the sentencing should be handled by the family that was injured in hopes of allowing the family to progress in their recovery.
2006-12-16 08:03:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Red Winged Bandit 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's probably one of the most controversial questions ever asked.
I personally do not believe in the death penalty--life in prisonment will do. I just cannot imagine killing another being unless it's in self-defense.
2006-12-16 08:14:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Patricia S 6
·
1⤊
0⤋