what do you think is the strongest argument for the death penalty ? Against it ?

Answer 1

I think that the best argument for is that in the case of mass murders/ serial killers and sex offenders the statistics show that they do not rehabilitate but continue with their actions that put them behind bars to start with. In order to protect the majority of the people the evil ones should be put to death. The only argument against that carries any weight with me is the possibility of killing an innocent.

Venice makes a good point about why we will never all agree. She also makes a good point about the cost but IMO the cost could be lowered. Why should we keep the laws that give so many appeals to convicted felons? I say that one appeal is good enough and then there is no long wait but quick justice.

Answer 2

A lot of people won't like my answer, but here goes. The strongest argument for the death penalty I can offer is the amount of money it costs taxpayers to keep someone who will probably never be rehabilitated in prison. I don't see statistical evidence in the United States that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crime (it appears to be in Saudi Arabia). The reason might be in the United States, either criminals all think they're smarter than crime investigators and won't get caught, they think that defence lawyers are so much more intelligent than public prosecutors they won't be indicted, or, most likely, they know that the "death penalty" means 20 or 30 years in "Hotel Death Row", a lot easier way to live than to go out to work and pay for your food and board, followed by a lot more humane and painless death than the one you would probably have had if you were acquitted.

Against it: because (in the United States, anyway), it's not a deterrent. Also, because sometimes - not often, but occasionally - we get it wrong and convict innocent people for capital crimes. Note that when there is no body or other forensic evidence, we still prosecute the person we THINK did it - on the basis of motive, lack of alibi and behavior. But that is not proof of anything other than the person had a motive, did not have an alibi and behaved strangely. Even confessions are dubious, because they are usually coerced. I wouldn't entertain the thought of capital punishment unless the case was an absolute 100 percent slam-dunk.

Answer 3

There will never be a way to get people to agree to have or not to have the death penalty based on moral and ethical values arguments. Those things are non-negotiable. You will never get another person to change their minds on their own personal ethical, moral or religious beliefs. We need to negotiate this on terms that everyone can understand and agree. The biggest argument against the death penalty is the cost. It costs more to go through the appeal process and the actual death phase than it does to house and feed a prisoner for life. The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.) If we cannot agree on this issue morally or ethically, we should at least be able to agree on it financially. This $114 million dollars could be put toward "life" issues such as better education systems, or poor, elderly and handicapped medical care. Based on the inability to argue the pros and cons of the death penalty on any other basis, there can be no argument "for" the death penalty.

Answer 4

The strongest argument for it would be that the offender, if guilt is proven beyond ANY doubt, could never commit a crime ever again.

The best argument against it would be that it is quite impossible to prove someones guilt without ANY doubt.

Any innocent put to death for a crime he/she did not commit would be murder, and who would be put to death for that one then?

Answer 5

i think there is no argument for it, but the argument against it i hold to be shortest and truest is:
"How can we bring someone to justice using a method of killing, like he has done?"
Meaning how can the government find that killing people is a justice for people who kill people? An eye for an eye doesn't work!

Answer 6

For It as a deterrent....

I can Guarantee that if a person is executed...

HE WILL NEVER KILL AGAIN

Can the same be said of someone in prison...they can kill in jail or if they get paroled