Should the death penalty be abolished, why or why not?

Question

just wondering about the opinions out there, tell me why or why not, and explain reasons if possible. Thanks!

Answer 1

No it should not be. There has to be an ultimate punishment that fits the brutality of certain crimes. To simply allow certain people to live out their lives in jail is not fair to the victims or their families. The question that I believe is more relevant is, is our death penalty system in need of reform? And I believe that it is. The appeals process should be curtailed to help speed along the executions. Doing this provides not just a speedier resolution, but also prevents a death row inmate from languishing in prison for 25 years waiting to be executed. That is cruel and unusual punishment, not whether the person feels pain when injected with a chemical cocktail. The death penalty system can use some tweaks, but it is still necessary.

Answer 2

How can we, as a society say that killing someone is wrong, and yet have state sponsored murders in the form of the death penalty? You cant be a hypocrite and have it both ways. What if you kill an innocent person? You can't take back the death penalty.
Also, countries that have a death penalty do not have lower crime rates, so that takes away the "deterrent" argument as well.

Answer 3

Yes the death penalty should be abolished, its true that they may of taken anothers life but who is to decide to take the criminals life? No one should have to decide on these things, and some people may even abuse this or make a mistake. What happens if someone makes a mistake and the person life is taken away for something they did not do? I believe people should be given a second chance, i am sure some people turn good.

Answer 4

It should be, but not for harsh crimes like serial killers.

I say this because in lots of places they use the death penalty too much(like in China, though they do have a huge population so it doesn't make a dent).

However, serial killers who're put away for life are just wasting space. They just sit there day in day out eating up taxmoney. So long as the evidence is clear, they should get euthenized. They're of no use to the living.

Answer 5

Abolish!

1. It is state-sanctioned murder..no better than the street thug who commits a drive-by.
2. It is not a deterent. If it were, there would be no capital crimes committed.
3. It is applied unequally.
4. Too many innocent people have been put to death.
5. Too many innocent people have sat on death row until DNA or other evidence proves innocent.
6. A civilized society doesn't murder its population.

Answer 6

It should be abolished because of all of the reasons the other people wrote on here

Answer 7

No, if a mass murderer is convicted, obviousely they should face death> I personally think they should be tortured at length for a few years first but thats just me.

I cannot believe the left is actually trying to fight for the rights of serial killers and child murderers because "they are people to" and they have rights blah blah blah.

Answer 8

No. There are some actions which are so anti-social that anyone who commits such must be considered to have surrendered his humanity. Putting such a person to death is appropriate in such case. The Oklahoma City bomber was a case in point.

Answer 9

Yes absolutely, just as soon as they're done putting all those sick bastards to death, and they also stop all the rest of the crime in the world. Then most certainly stop this barbaric procedure.

Answer 10

NO! Serial murderers and the Andrea Yates of the world will only keep killing! Why should the tax payers have to spend their money to keep the degenerates alive?