Do you think the death penalty is morally right?

Answer 1

yes , if the crime can be prov-en beyond a reasonably doubt

Answer 2

I don't think it is morally right to continue a system which, worst of all, risks executing innocent people, and at the same time, is not effective in preventing or reducing crime. Human beings are fallible the death penalty system buries its worst mistakes. There are numerous practical issues involved. (Sources below)

Risks of executing innocent people-
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't 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 and regions that have it than in states that don’t.

We have a good alternative. 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.

Death penalty costs. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start mounting up before trial, continue through the uniquely complicated trial in death penalty cases (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court), and appeals.

The death penalty doesn't apply to people with money. Its not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding 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.

Answer 3

Morally right??? I would find it very interesting to see how many people on here said "absolutely not!!" and then in the next breath scream bloody murder about the possibility of overturning Roe V Wade.
" That is a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!" They scream.
Well the death penalty is SOCIETIES choice!! There are fundamental differences between the two. First, that child has done nothing wrong. He/she is without sin. It did not ask to be conceived by a selfish ego-centric woman who values her ability to party more than the life of her child.
Second, the fellow sitting on death row didn't get there for throwing snowballs. His crime was considered so heinous that society has determined he can no longer be trusted or allowed to exist amongst us.
The death penalty should not be viewed as a "revenge" for the acts to the soon to be deceased. Look upon it as discarding an element of society.

Answer 4

It could be but not yet. Right now it's still remotely possible for an "innocent" person to be executed.

I put that in quotes because in most of the handful of cases where someone is exonerated, the guy had a rap sheet as long as my ---- but just didn't do THIS crime.

So I say, make it like this: on the second felony involving violence or death (i.e., felony murder counts), you're eligible.

That way even if this is the 1 in 1,000,000 occurrence, where this guy didn't rape, torture and kill Suzy, he shouldn't have been out of prison for raping, torturing and TRYING to kill Sally back in the early 1990s, the odds of being wrongly convicted TWICE are pretty much nil, and so we don't really feel bad that he's going to fry.

This is usually the case anyway but it just makes it official.

Obviously the people who work in the system need to keep working on it to make sure that 1 in 1,000,000 becomes 1 in 5,000,000, but this solution would prevent "innocent" people from being executed.

Answer 5

Morals have to be left to the individual. I am certainly not in any position to judge anyone's moral beliefs.
Personally, I believe in the death penalty. I believe anyone that intentionally takes the life of another individual does not deserve to live.
Personally, I believe in the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not kill is very important. However, I do not believe this is as black and white as some people would make you think.

Answer 6

As long as there is no question as to guilt, it is morally right.

The commandment "thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder," most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10). Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

Answer 7

Absolutely! When you kill some one in my state (TX) we will kill you right back. Now, I believe it could be a deterrent if the amount of death penalty cases and executions were basically the same amount every year. In other words if there where 2500 death penalty cases and 2500 executions then that would make a statement.

Answer 8

I don't think there is anything moral about killing a defenseless human. Even if the person did a heinous thing, that does not change the morallity of it. It just makes it harder for society to remain moral by resisting killing.

Answer 9

No and I don't believe the government should have the right to put someone to death. And if you believe in the 10 commandments and are pro death penalty you are a hypocrit.

Answer 10

I believe in the penalty being appropriate for the crime, so yes, I do believe it's right for those extremely heinous crimes.