Is the Death Penalty Morally acceptable?

Question

Regardless of the actions of the convict, if you are going to support the death penalty you must get past one statement,

That it is OK to KILL another HUMAN BEING.

The circumstances are irrelevant, there is absolutely no way to support the death penalty without agreeing with that statement.

So, is it ok to kill another human being?

"If my family was killed" There is a big difference between morality and vengeance. Regardless of if they had all been murdered, I still could not impose the death penalty without agreeing with this statement...

It is OK to KILL another Human Being

I am NOT using this statement to my advantage. It is not an argument for either side. But would you agree that you CAN NOT support the Death Penalty unless you can get past this question.
IS IT OK TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?

Anyone who has been put to death has been a human being, and the death penalty is killing them. There's no manipulative rhetoric here. If you support the death penalty, you are saying that there are times it is OK to kill another human being.

Answer 1

My personal view is that it is not ok to kill another human being. But I think that it is important for everyone to know the facts about the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. States that have the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not.

Capital punishment costs far more than life without parole. And a great deal of the extra cost has nothing to do with appeals.

More and more states have life without parole, which means what it says and being locked in a tiny cell, for 23 of 24 hours a day, for the rest of a person's life, is no picnic. Where this is the maximum sentence, the costs are many times lower. Money saved by getting rid of the death penalty can be used for victims services programs, which are always underfunced.

The system is very error prone. DNA is not the answer. It was used to prove innocence in very few of the over 120 cases where people on death row were shown to be innocent. And executing an innocent person is something most of us do not want, so we provide for appeals of death sentences.

Death sentences can be very hard on the families of murder victims. Every time the case is appealed, they have to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift, and rarely appealed. Many victims’ family members do not support the death penalty for these reasons.

Supporting a common sense approach to how we punish murderers and how we respond to depraved acts does not mean we condone either. The death penalty is not smart on crime.

Answer 2

Its not a matter of murder. This is a matter of justice. My personal opinion is that capital punishment is necessary. How can you maintain order in a society if their is no serious punishment?
If you take someones life willfully and not by accident and you are aware of your actions then you should be held accountable.

Why would anyone bother obeying a law if there was no consequence for breaking it? Murder and capital punishment are two very separate things that you've got confused.
Ask yourself this question if someone brutally murdered someone in your family and then got out of jail 2 years later and murdered again how would you feel? Would you be ok with that?
Would you let a rabid dog run around on a school playground?
I am not a judge or a lawmaker but society would devolve to absolute anarchy if serious crimes did not affect serious punishment. When large groups of people have to live together in modern day societies w/ millions of people then there have to be laws to protect the innocent. If a lethal injection is given to a vicious murderer then that is the consequence of their own action. The laws are on the books. When a criminal steps outside the law then he/she becomes subject to it. The society, the state is trying to preserve and protect its citizens.
Say you get a small injury on your skin. Just a little cut.
All the antibodies in your body unite to fight off infection. Maybe your body should so nothing and let what could have been easily been prevented turn into a septic wound that causes you to lose an arm. Likewise, if one person gets away w/ murder then others will follow that example. Eventually any body will murder anybody and everybody suffer.
So, no murder is not ok. Capital punishment is the law in countries all around the world. These countries have enacted laws to protect the innocent. They have every right to enforce the law. Look up the definition for murder and compare it to capital punishment. They are worlds apart.

Answer 3

Not really. But my big problem with the death penalty is not the morality of it, but the effectiveness. You can never guarantee that everyone who faces the death penalty is guilty - and history has shown that many innocent people have been executed. The Birmingham 6 would all be dead by now if the Death Penalty existed in the UK - they were set free a few years ago! I believe that one innocent person killed is one too many and on that basis the Death Penalty is wrong.

Answer 4

YES, I support the death penalty. I have no problem with getting past your statement either. You are taking your statement and using it to your advantage. You are doing so by saying the circumstances are irrelevant. Because if our state supported the death penalty the circumstances WOULD be relevant.

Answer 5

good question. i did a paper on this for school and i'll tell you the main things for both sides.

the families of someone killed might feel better if the killer was killed.

if they are killed they aren't going to killl someone else. (and saving jail space)

against:

only god (if you belive in that) can take away human life. (thats a really big argument, its also used a lot about abortion)

death row can take YEARS. by the time they are supposed to die the families of the victom might not feel so strongley. heck, the person on death row could die before thier supposed to be killed



personally, i disagree with capitol punishment.

Answer 6

No, it is not okay to kill anyone. The death penalty is by definition wrong.

The way it is applied in the US is corrupt & flawed anyway, as those who can afford the best and most expensive lawyers never get the death penalty.

Answer 7

I don't think the death penalty should ever be put in place.

At first I was all for it. But then I realized that spending your life in jail is way worse than dieing. Instead of the death penalty, I think we should he the solitary confinement penalty. Now that will teach criminals a lesson!

Answer 8

Don't be judgemental. I don't support it either, but it's wrong to label people who do, just because they disagree with you. .

How can this NOT be an argument for your side? It totally fits the definition of an argument for your side! Your problem is, you are so sure of your convictions that you can't allow yourself to see other people as good, unless they agree with your position on this.

You asked a question, but you had already decided in advance not to accept any responses.

Answer 9

Even in the bible there is punishment by death for example after Moses parted the sea and crossed the waters closed upon his enemy. We are not god but neither was Moses.

I believe in the death penalty and it is morally acceptable.
(to me anyway) you are your own person so is up to you!

Answer 10

O.K. The Bible says " That whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed'. It also says "Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord", but is it talking about the individual or the masses? Doesn't it say, " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life'?

Personally, I would rather be on trial for someone else's murder than have him on trial for mine.