Are capital punishments fair for criminals?

Question

Please say your opinion.I want it to be a disscussion.

Answer 1

But is capital punishment best for society?

At least one answerer doesn't realize that people have confessed to murders they did not commit and were sentenced to death. Some were not competent, of course, but some were coerced or manipulated into confessing, for example, John Henry Knapp in Arizona, Barry Lee Fairchild in Arkansas.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

I thought they called it "capital punishment" because if you have the capital you don't get punished. i.e. OJ Simpson.

This week there have been reports of two possible miscarriages of justice regarding murders in the UK. I don't want innocent people being killed.

To stop crime the only answer to ensure that the general population think they aren't going to get away with the crime - Do you think a murderer considers the likely punishment before committing the crime, "I might get 30 years or might face capital punishment?" No. but if a criminal thought, "If I commit this crime I will probably be caught!" - that's the deterent.

This is backed up in the UK by the fact that the murder rate dropped immediately after the abolition of capital punishment in the 60s. I know it has risen since, but that's a society-based thing, nothing to do with punishment.

Answer 4

I feel torn on this issue as some errors in the judicial system have taken place and innocent people have been executed. Now that we have scientific methods to prove a person's innocence or guilt, I'd like to see it in place. BUT only if there is absolutely no question.Some people have even admitted to doing a crime when they haven't - due to mental disorder.
I do think we shouldn't be so damn gentle - using the lethal injection method.
I just put my beloved canine companion down (seizures) and she went peacefully, painlessly.
If we use the same method for murderers, what kind of punishment is that?

Answer 5

Yes it's fair for criminals when they have been absolutely proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then why not. We have to have some way to make others think twice about doing the same thing.

I'm not going to be able to quote the bible exactly but the gist is this. That when some one does wrong, such as murdering some one, the bible say we are to send them to God so that he can deal with them. I know of only one way to send any one to God and that is by offing them.

Answer 6

When guilt is proven beyond all doubt, all child murderers should be killed by a firing squad. When guilt is not proven, you shouldn't kill them, because of the smallest chance the real perpetrator is still out there, and you wouldn't want a possibly innocent prisoner to become yet another victim of the real killer. As long as there it's only very likely the suspect did it, you simply keep him in prison as long as no one else is captured for the same crime.

Answer 7

definite, that is honest by way of fact, in all fairness, the right scientific look after somebody unlawfully taking somebody else's existence is to have their existence taken away. definite, that is ethical by way of fact (a) a guy or woman who unlawfully kills poses an substantial probability to society at great, (b) there's no assure that a guy or woman who unlawfully kills won't in any respect accomplish that lower back, and (c) conserving a guy or woman who unlawfully kills in a penal complex places an undue financial burden on truthful, not elementary-working, tax-paying electorate who do not ruin the regulation. i will hear the bleeding-coronary heart fool in the history asserting "What on the subject of the commandment in the Bible that asserts 'Thou Shalt not Kill'?" the respond is easy: the comparable God who gave the commandment against homicide prescribed a penalty for people who violated that commandment. "If a guy taketh the existence of a guy, then via guy shall his existence be taken." Exodus 21:12.

Answer 8

Yes it is a fair punishment for the worst murders after the jury has heard and considered the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Answer 9

it should be baned, it has led to irreversible miscarriages of justice, that life imprisonment is an effective substitute, and that it also violates the criminal's right to life.

some may argue that, if you take a life you should have yours taken, but do two wrongs make a right, should the state be brought down to the level of merders.

Answer 10

when a murderer CONFESSES to a murder, and he or she has been found competent, there should be no discussion, no wasted tax payers dollars, just off with their head. If they dont confess...I guess you have to waste my hard earned tax dollars to try them.