Is capital punishment the same as murder?

Question

I say yes.

They are both the premeditated taking of another's life.

Answer 1

The idea of capital punishment has been used and is approved by the federal government and 38 of the 50 states in America. Yes, it is the premeditated taking of ones life. Studies prove that the death penalty doesn't reduce the crime rate nor does it offer the citizens protection from murderers, so why do it? WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS EVIL????
If capital punishment worked, our crime level would be much lower than it is. Granted, there are certain crimes out there that demand the death penalty, but the ONLY crime that it should actually be used for is treason - because it affects all the people in America rather than one or two. Justice is NOT served by killing an alleged killer - all we are doing is getting retribution for his/her evil deeds. Christians say the bible says "an eye for and eye" but the bible also says "Thou shalt not kill" and it doesn't say, "Thou shalt no kill Mrs. Jones" or someone else! Capital punishment IS the premeditated taking of another's life!

Answer 2

No offense yet i in my opinion do not care in case you provide up your argument or not. i in my opinion do not would desire to bypass out and spend the time finding information that coach your factor is incorrect, they are adequate so if your involved find out the weaknesses of your argument bypass look for them your self. i will see why you will possibly think of that capital punishment is a deterrent, yet i don't understand why you suspect this is a shown actuality. I fantastically doubt that a murderer is worried in any respect with receiving the dying penalty whilst he's in the act of plotting or actually murdering somebody. the very actuality that some states in the united states have the dying penalty and persons nevertheless shop committing homicide at severe costs no much less could go away someone with an oz. of worry-unfastened experience to realize that capital punishment fairly did not deter ****, i don't see why you think of it fairly is an illogical assumption you look illogical for asserting that fairly. via your good judgment the united states could be experiencing checklist low numbers of violent crimes, you stated it replaced right into a deterrent top? Oh wait I forgot you stated that we want the dying penalty because of the fact we've maximum of homicide circumstances, so then you definately only admitted that the dying penalty does not do something to dodge homicide notwithstanding this is in basic terms a punishment. You ruined your person argument, there's no want for me to bypass discover information for you. So ask your self this, if the dying penalty isn't something extra advantageous than a punishment (on account which you admitted interior of your person argument that it is not a deterrent) and harmless human beings get placed via this "punishment" because of the fact of a unsuitable justice equipment, do you nevertheless have confidence in the dying penalty?

Answer 3

To misquote Immanuel Kant (I believe): If you live on a volcanic island, and you have a prisoner who has been convicted of premeditated murder, and the volcano is erupting, you should execute the prisoner before you vacate the island.

IMHO. There is no appropriate punishment for premeditated murder. It is society's duty to eliminate the murderer so that they cannot kill again. This should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible, and should not be done in such a way as to be mistaken for revenge or entertainment of any kind (i.e. public hanging).

'Premeditated murder' is a legal term for a particular kind of killing. Killing becomes murder when it is defined as murder by law. Capital punishment is not defined as murder by law, so it is not.

Capital punishment is a society, not a person, permanently eliminating a danger to that society in a manner defined by the law of that society.

Answer 4

Paying a fine is capital punishment. As a system, Capital Punishment has a wide array of penalties, ultimately arriving at the final one, known as the death penalty. And, a legal punishment, in this case, an execution, is carried out by the many upon the one, for performing atrocities upon one or more other(s). How does that equal murder?

Do you know what corporal punishment is? Research it, and think of the alternative to what we have now. I would rather have the payment of (a) monetary fine(s) or incarceration(s), as opposed to having (a) dismemberment(s) and flailing(s).

Edit: I'm seeing folks saying that the Bible says "An eye for an eye..." No. That's Nebuchadnezzar's Law, also known as Hammurabi's Code. It was written 3700 years ago, in what is now Iraq, and was then the Babylonian Empire, and is often referred to as the first civilized legal code.

Answer 5

i am against capital punishment but it is the law of the land. you have to ask yourself would you want someone dead if your immediate family was the victim of a senseless murder? they are not the same just because the end result is the same superficially. 12 people decide a persons crimes were so bad that shoild be put to death not one or two decide to kill someone for 35 dollars and a pack of camels. not all murders are premeditated. apples and oranges are both fruits but they are not the same.

Answer 6

I think, capital punishment DOES fit this definition. Whether or not you agree or disagree as to the need for capital punishment, it IS premeditated killing. It isn't illegal, though. Maybe that's where murder and capital punishment differ.

Answer 7

It is interesting to know that death certificates (at least in California) of people who have been executed list "homicide" as the cause of death. It sounds like you are against capital punishment. I think the argument you are using will not really convince someone else. You should start with some solid information about the death penalty or some religious (or moral) arguments and go on from there.

The best place to start is the Death Penalty Information Center, which has tons of easy to follow stuff about the cost of the death penalty, risks of executing innocent people, religious views of the death penalty, arbitrariness (racial, geographical, economic), deterrence, alternatives to the death penalty and other things.

Answer 8

I think that when you kill anyone against their will, it's murder. Do the people who get the capital punishment deserve it? When they are guilty, I say absolutely.

I'm not really into the bible and stuff, but our government likes to reference it when convenient. In the bible, it says, basically, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." That is meaning that if someone murders your family, than that is punishable by the convicted being murdered themselves. If you steal something, you should lose something yourself.

There are cases when people who have been put to death have been acquited of charges... DNA evidence, etc. This is why I don't like capital punishment. Neither do I enjoy spending all of my tax money on housing criminals: rapists, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, etc. It's the lesser of two evils I suppose.

Hope this helps.

Answer 9

Capital punishment for murderers is society's way of insuring that the murderer doesn't kill more innocent people. It's a good idea, as any one who has a relative who was killed after a recidivist murder was released early by a liberal judge will tell you.

Answer 10

Not exactly, one is done for reasons of insanity, rage, or greed, it is the taking of an innocent life which make murder so unacceptable as to call for the ancient retribution of an eye for an eye. Or a death for a death.
The other is done essentially to protect society from the person who has proven themselves capable of killing another human, someone who has proven that the restraints of law and possibility of punishment hold no fear for them.
Killers are dangerous and cannot be trusted even in a maximum security setting, so what can we do, but eliminate them, cull them from society in a way that truly keeps us safe?
Its not unusual for a killer to kill in prison thinking that hes in for life and what else can they do to him?
One is done against society the other is done to protect society, its a grave distinction that should be used carefully, but it is necessary.