Do we have the right to murder the murderer by capital punishment?

Answer 1

Capital punishment is inflicted as a deterrent. Through the ages society has fomulated its laws. None of these laws are new. The law includes capital punishment in a capital case. As compared with the past when the criminal was torn apart or dismembered, now society has become comparatively lenient with criminals. But has crime reduced? It has only increased of course considering that the population has also increased, crime has remained within limits while counting numbers. Let society formulate its own ways to control crime. The more gruesome the means adopted to punish a felon, the better the deterrent.

Answer 2

There are common sense reasons to oppose the death penalty. Capital punishment is just not an effective societal tool.

More and more people oppose the death penalty because they believe it is an ineffective way of keeping us safe. They are coming to this position for practical, rather than for moral or ideological reasons.

I hope that people on both sides will take the time to find out about the hard facts.
Here are some of them-

It is not a deterrent- states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not. People who commit murder do not think they will be caught, let alone punished, that is, if they think at all.

The death penalty costs much more than life sentences. Much of the extra cost comes before conviction, in fact even before trial. (In my opinion, we should spend the extra money for victims services where it is really needed.)

Life without parole is on the books in more and more states. It means what it says. It is no picnic to be locked up in a tiny cell for 23 of 24 hours a day.

Over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (In the overwhelming number of these cases, the evidence was not DNA. DNA is not a miracle cure for wrongful convictions). The exonerees had spent many years on death row before being found innocent. Speeding up the process would guarantee the execution of an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.

Once someone is executed for a crime the case is closed. If the wrong person was convicted, the real killer is still out there.

Death sentences can be very hard on victims’ families. The process takes a long time and they are forced to relive their ordeal over and over again, in courts and in the media. Some murder victims’ family members have said that although they support the death penalty in theory, they do not want to see it in the case of their murdered loved one because of how the process affects families like theirs. Life without parole is swift and sure and rarely results in appeals.

Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean you excuse or coddle criminals who commit brutal and depraved acts. They must be punished severely.

Answer 3

I don't think there will ever be a unified answer to that question. What do you do with people like? You can't leave them out the street so you lock them up and waste time and money on prisons but then by the same token if you execute them it saves time, money, and gets rid of the problem, right?
One way to look at is that by executing someone, you're letting them off the hook rather than literally rot away mentally and physically in a cell.
You know, interestingly enough, it states in the Bible that if someone kills you then you have been deprived of living out your natural life and not given a full shot at redemption. So, if someone kills you, the Bible also says you will be totally forgiven of your sins.
I think executing someone is not only a quick way out of a bad spot but a quick way to Heaven. You know?
I wonder if all of those people sitting in the viewing gallery are aware that the guy strapped to the gurney just got a free ticket to Heaven all paid for they government.
If you toss the guy in a cell, chances are pretty good he'll repent and find God and possibly be forgiven or maybe murdered by an inmate. So, the cards are stacked in the convicts favor for his place in the afterlife no matter which way you slice it.

Answer 4

As an individual perhaps we have no right to murder anyone. But the State has the responsibility to reduce crimes by deterrent punishments.Otherwise, the hardcore criminals will have a free run. Of-course, our courts are capable to pronounce capital punishment on the merit of each case. There should be no political interference in the execution of judiciary function of the court.

Answer 5

Well... here is the ultimate thing. Personally, i would rather be dead than live my entire life in an 8 by five max security cell. So i think were doing these creeps a favor by killing them> i Don't believe in an eye for an eye, cuz when someone rapes a lil kid, killing them is NOT the same as equal punishment. And murdering a murderer does NOT deter others form committing the same crimes. What we NEED to do is get more creative in our punishments.What we need to do is bring torture back in cases where their is an overwhelming amount of witness, DNA and any other fun and fancy evidence. If people wanna do bad things, make sure REALLY bad things happen to them. Especially in crimes of power and control.

Answer 6

No, but then capital punishment isn't murder per se. In the US, we have that clause preventing "cruel and unusual punishment" in our constitution, so having somebody drawn and quartered is out, as that would be societal murder, but society does have the moral authority for capital punishment if it so decides.

Answer 7

Murder is defined as unjustified homicide. We do not murder a murderer: since it is justified, it is not murder. It is execution.

What would you have us do with someone who is simply too brutal to trust in the world? Someone who is unrepentant and sees his killing as no more than any lion or tiger would do. Would you lock him up in a cage for his entire life, perhaps to be the victim of other brutal men in the dark of night? Or is it really more merciful to execute him and end a life that just plain went wrong and cannot be put right?

If he can still be put right, if he can still be useful to society and not a total waste, then spare him for that purpose. What purpose do you propose? After all, in executing him you do allow him to serve one last useful purpose: a bad example. An example of how not to live. And perhaps a cadaver for a biology laboratory.

Answer 8

It's not murder when you take the gene pool of a murderer out of the system by capital punishment. He/she did not give the one he/she murdered the choice to live or die. They should not be allowed a choice.

Answer 9

Capital punishment is no murder.

Defination of murder:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Capital punishment is legal and it is justice no malice.

As far as the right for capital punishment same right as abortion.

Answer 10

capital punishment is not murder.Capital punishment is the legal execution of a convicted person that the law deems appropriate for the crime committed.You may not agree with the law,but as of now it is the law in most states.One can make the argument either way,for or against.If you want it changed ,you must seek these changes through your state government.