Pro Capital punishment or against? Why?

Answer 1

If I follow my human nature, I would say "pro"....that's the natural reaction when someone has sinned against us. That's essentially what a criminal does....commit an offense against society as a whole. Our first reaction is, "Punish Them!"

However, I don't believe that's how God sees it. If I try to look at it as God would view it, then I would have to say "against". The bible teaches that He is a God of love, but also of wrath. He is faithful both in blessings and in punishment. The bible teaches, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"....yet it also teaches, "vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord". I believe that the new testament is clear that it is not our place to take another's life no matter what crime they've committed against us. Leave that to the Lord.

Answer 2

There are different pros and cons to either choice. I will start with the pros of Capital Punishment.

Capital Punishment frees up a lot of debt that would have accumulated by keeping a person imprisoned. It also allows a person to get out of their suffering in a quick and efficient manner. Rather than spending the rest of their life in misery, they can end it in but a few hours. What is so bad about death anyway. But is this a pro? It depends on whether you view a person as allowed a second chance or not. Should a person who has committed the ultimate crime be allowed such an easy way out?

Now the Cons... if a person has only one chance on this world, and their is no afterlife, who are we to take away their time? And if their is an afterlife, who are we to condemn them to hell? What if they have not had enough time to repent?

I, personally, am more against it than for it.

Answer 3

Many of the answers you have received talk about this issue from a religious or moral point of view. Here are some practical facts about the death penalty, all verifiable and sourced. People should keep these in mind too, and follow up with common sense.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person and speed
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It’s not a guarantee that we won't execute an innocent person. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think about the consequences or even that they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. Much of these result from the unusually complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty. (It also gives the prisoner a chance to recover his lost humanity.)

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not eye for an eye slogans or partisanship.

Answer 4

Pro- We are all put on this planet for one purpose- to find our contribution to the greater good. Everyone is capable of contributing in some way, whether it's big or small, unless they are incarcerated. Those who have proven themselves incorrigible, or who have been convicted of a crime for which they must spend the rest of their lives in prison will never be able to contribute anything. Pedophiles in particular are known to always repeat their crimes, and should never be released under any circumstances. They cannot be rehabilitated. The only way to make room in prisons for lesser criminals (like car thieves and crack dealers) is to get rid of the murderers and pedophiles. There are far to many criminals out there not getting the punishments that would help them to turn their lives around because our prisons are full of people for whom there is no hope. Also, with DNA evidence as solid as it is now, it is far less likely than it used to be for an innocent person to be convicted.

Answer 5

For it and in case some new age Christians say no to read the bible I would strongly suggest they reread there was the founders of this religion - Hebrew god - had more reasons to have people put to death than just about any religion on earth it the old testament and through their laws/statutes of old. The true Christians that have any real understanding of the text and those individuals that have had their lives touched by the violence of these individuals/criminal would/should be Pro Capital punishment.

Answer 6

I am pro capitol punishment. I think if you take a life you don't deserve to live. I think that any one that commits a sex crime against a minor deserves to die a slow agonizing death. There are many people in the judicial system that just sit there sucking away at our economy. They rape and kill yet they can sit in a jail cell and get three square meals a day that we as taxpayers must pay for. They should all be put to death.

Answer 7

Now here the Fundies who are right-to-life will tell you that they believe in Capital Punishment. And a liberal pro-choice like me will say that I don't. Doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone I expect. But there you are.

Answer 8

In principle I am against state-sanctioned murder. Even if the condemned committed murder, I cannot justify violent retaliation. The morally superior should not be swayed by arguments in favor of execution.

But at the same time I see the argument on the other side. It's tempting to see justice as the application of physical cruelty. it might even be less costly or necessary to execute some persons, such as mass murderers or dictators.

But court costs in capital cases (appeals process, etc) are higher than life imprisonment, which can be just as horrendous if it lacks a social environment (as some maximum-security prisons do). Furthermore, there is a statistical stigma against minorities convicted of similar crimes who receive the death penalty. You're more likely to be put to death if you're black. Plus a study of lethal injection found that the drugs were improperly administered and that some prisoners were likely awake as they suffocated to death. How does that sound to you?

So personally, I cannot support it. Murder is murder. Same case with war. It should only be done in self-defense, not retaliation. How can we defend our own morals if society is stooping to those of murderers? How will civilization improve if we maintain this barbaric practice?

P.S. I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart liberal here, and I certainly don't wish to protect murderers or child rapists or so forth. But countries in Western Europe have already invalidated the death penalty and they have lower rates of violent crime.

It doesn't help, it's intrinsically cruel, and it's morally indefensible from a societal standpoint. So I oppose capital punishment.

Answer 9

For extremely violent criminals I'm pro-captial punishment but only because rehabilitation for murderers is slim. Now if it was accidental (i.e. some idiot jumps in front of someone's car and the person hits him), no. If a guy kills the man who raped his 6 year old daughter (and it's a case where he temporarily lost his mind) - no. But for cold blooded murderers like gang violence or serial killers - kill them. They're a waste of flesh and tax payer money.

Answer 10

Romans 13.......Some Sociopaths kill for the pleasure of it and cannot be cured of their illness...they have no moral baring. If you take and eye, the eye has to be taken. You take a life you deserve to die as a murderer. There is a difference between warfare, murder and preserving one's own life from eminent danger or that of someone helpless. Murder is the intentional taking of a life that you cannot replace, different from warfare.. This is not actually a religious question, but since our Western legal system borrowed a few principals from it, in our Bill of Rights you cannot incriminate yourself the principal was taken from Biblical and Hammurabi's law. Sanctuary cities were provided in the Old Testament for those who escaped for committing murder, to avoid being killed yourself for committing the crime.