Why do we kill people in order to show that killing people is wrong?

Question

I have not made up my mind about the death penalty...

how ever.. I do find that question interesting....

why would we KILL someone in order to prove the point that killing is wrong? Doesn't that seem a little curious....

Answer 1

It makes no sense, you're right! It's pure hypocrisy. Mahatma Gandhi said
"An eye for an eye would make the whole world go blind"
and he was right! I don't think we should make choices that punish people, I think we should make choices that improve our society as a whole. We have to think about bettering our world and not about giving people "what they deserve."
The world needs help healing and the killing of someone is murder, no matter who you are killing.

Answer 2

A lot of things about the death penalty do not make sense.
Here are answers to some of the questions often asked about the practical aspects of the system. The sources are listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process. Extra costs include those due to the 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 and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

What about the very worst crimes?
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??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole.

Answer 3

Wow! great question.
The death penalty serves 2 main purposes. First, it removes evil from society to protect the innocent. Second, it serves to deter crime. And yes, it is a true fact that it does both.
If you were brought up in a bad situation, not much food, no love etc and you saw, a chance to hurt or kill someone and take away from them, money, a car, jewelry etc and the only penalty you faced if caught would be three hot meals a day, free medical, a roof over your head, color tv, a weight room to work out in, would it stop you? of course not.
But, if you knew that if you killed, or even seriously hurt someone, that you would be put to death ( not in 10 years or more the way the liberals have it now) but within 6 months, and that during that 6 months you would be allowed one appeal, and you would be kept locked down 24 hrs a day with no privelidges while you awaited that appeal. wouldn't you decide ahead of time not to do it?
Also, My personal feeling is that the death penalty should only be applied where there is over whelming evidence. Like DNA, photographs or video of the person doing the crime, or irrifutable eye witnesses. If none of those things applied, then life in prison without parole ( at hard labor) would be the proper sentence.
Remember too, that no matter what the liberals think, in order for justice to work, it must be prompt (no delays of years) it must be public (which means bad people would see exactly what to expect and be deterred) and it must be just ( the penalty must fit the crime)

Answer 4

I am against the death penalty and often throw out this argument, but, to be honest, it's not entirely fair. If someone kidnaps and imprisons another person most of us agree that the punishment should be prison. So we do lock up people to show that locking up people is wrong.

But I have a number of other problems with the death penalty. One is that we can't reverse it. Recently DNA evidence has shown that we've convicted a lot of people who were not guilty. DNA evidence is the deciding factor in relatively few cases, so many who are also innocent will never be able to prove their convictions were wrong. As long as we are making so many mistakes (and we always will) we should not be killing people.

Although it's often argued that the death penalty deters crime, studies have shown again and again that this isn't the case. The chances of getting caught deter crime, not whether we kill the convicted.

As a society, killing people does us harm. Setting ourselves up as such ultimate authorities and then slowly and deliberately killing human beings takes a toll on us.

We would all like to exact bloodthirsty revenge on the worst criminals, but that sort of hatred shouldn't be indulged in. Just listen to others here talk about peeling the skin off of convicts and you can see the base level that we can sink to if we indulge such rabid hate. Is that barbarism really a society we want?

Life imprisonment without the chance of ever being freed (unless shown innocent) is a tough sentence. Many would prefer death, but we don't leave the choice to the felon. Justice isn't accomplished by giving in to blood lust.

I actually am undecided on only one crime. Murder while in jail. I can see a good argument for executing those who are undeniably guilty of the crime of murder while in prison because in those cases prison has proved to be ineffective. But I'm still inclined just to go with ultra-maximum security rather than, as a society, killing.

Answer 5

Not at all. Right now in our county there is a young male(I am not going to give his race because it's not important) that is raping and robbing elderly women. He has raped, robbed, and severely beaten three women the youngest of which is 73 years old. They have all lived so far but he will not stop until he is caught and eventually the odds are that he will murder someone soon. He is quite frankly an animal. He needs to be put out of society's misery. Why should we feed, clothes, house and provide excellent medical care for him for the next 40 years of his life? He is described as being in his early 20's if he is caught, found guilty and given life in prison he could live well into his seventies. If he is caught, found guilty, and given life in prison with the possibility he could get out in 20 years or so and start up where he left off. I am sorry but some people just need to be dealt with in a certain way. Yes, I am a Christian, yes I believe that he could have a true conversion and be saved and forgiven and go to heaven. Carla Faye Tucker did. She still committed heinous crimes and she paid for them with her life which is what her sentence was. What do you think about someone as callous as Scott Peterson?? He is so narcissistic that he killed his wife when she was 8 months pregnant there by killing his own child. Death quite frankly is too good for him in my opinion.

Answer 6

If someone kidnapped your little five year old girl, spent a week or two raping and sodomizing her, and then buried her alive under his Mother's front porch, you'd be screaming for the death penalty. What punishment do YOU suggest? a slap on the wrist? Murderers and pedophiles ought to be flayed of all their skin, and have boiling oil poured into their anuses! The "Capitol punishment" that they receive for their crimes is NOTHING!!! It is an easy release from their mental anguish...nothing compared to the evil that they have committed!

Answer 7

Your premise is wrong (which may not be your fault). We don't kill people to show that killing people is wrong. We kill people to show that MURDERING people is wrong. There's a big difference.

Remember, the Commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill." Some bibles have mis-translated the original Hebrew. It really says "Thou shalt not murder."

If it said thou shalt not kill, wouldn't that also mean you can't kill animals? Can't kill plants? Think about it. Nobody says it's "thall shalt not kill people."

Answer 8

The death penalty is all about vengence, not justice.

Answer 9

i agree. it is so weird. yet i'm afraid i have no answer. sorry.