If death is death then how can capital punishment be justified?

Question

If a person takes another persons life in the form of murder and then the murder is killed by capital punishment, is killing the murder acomplishing anything but more murder? When is it ok to take another persons life? is it ever ok to take a persons life? is your life worth more than another persons?

Answer 1

if you put it that way then, indeed there is no justification. we have no right to take away another human life. the death of a murderer will accomplish nothing but to satisfy an urge for revenge. but if you look at another angle you will see that there is justification. capital punishment is given to those deemed hopeless to change. If you had your family savagely murdered by a man whom you know to be violent for as long as you've known him. would you be at ease at night if he was sentenced for multiple life sentences in a jail with a possiblity of him escaping? how about him, being in a jail with other men whose been convicted of lesser crimes like pickpocketing, or shoplifting? do you think those persons are deserving to be couped up with a murdere like him? while some of your tax money are spent on his food in jail, his laundry, his clothing, his electricy in jail. well actually there maybe no justification but it is a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Answer 2

When the assassin is killed by capital punishment, it is not murder. The assassin 's actions were examined by a court of law where it was found that he is guilty of having taken life of another person. As per the law of land,he is to be awarded the capital punishment which is to be carried out. This is not another murder.The assassin was a threat to the society in general and would have carried out many more murders if he were allowed to live. The capital punishment is also supposed to deter other criminals from committing some ones murder.Regarding other queries, it is never correct to take any ones life. Simply speaking, when we cannot give life to any one, we do not have any right to take any others life.We are children of Almighty and are equal .

Answer 3

Here is a different perspective. In the last few years discussions on the death penalty have focused on how it is actually implemented.

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. 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.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. 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 4

The idea of the death penalty is based on the premise of "an eye for an eye". If you kill someone, you will be killed.

Capital punishment in any form is murder. When someone is executed in the United States, the cause of death is listed as "homicide" on the death certificate.

My personal view on the subject is that the practice should be abolished for monetary reasons. It cost the tax payer far less money to give a criminal a life sentence without parole. A round figure would be one million dollars depending on the age of the condemned person. The cost of going through the appeals system for a someone sitting on death row is staggering. That dollar figure can be several million.

Answer 5

Capital Punishment can be justified by removing a serious threat (serial killer) to society. It is okay to take another person's life in self defense, i.e. someone pulls out a knife and stabs me in the arm, then tries to stab me again, I have a right to pull out a gun and shoot (kill) that person.

Is your life worth more than another person's? Hmmmm. good question. This is tough to answer when you compare someone like Mozart to a dying baby in Africa. I would say no from a finite standpoint, but what you do with your life can be worth more/less than someone else's accomplishments. For example Mother Theresa vs a gangster from L.A.

Answer 6

Here in Brazil we don't have capital punishment, but I have my opinion about it. I understand that no one should kill anybody, at least law and punish try to prevent, but once it happens, the murderer, for disobeying the law (for killing someone) has to be punished as prescribed by law, no matter if it's prison or death. Once it's prescribed, killing the murdered is not a crime any longer, once law permits it. What I can't do and, therefore, have to judge for it, is to kill someone that was not judge or sentenced, just because he killed someone else. It would be arbitrary and I would not be respecting law.

Answer 7

I don't think killing a person can ever be justified. But of course, this does not only pertain to capital punishment, but to the fighting of wars, policing, and to self defense as well.

Answer 8

We shouldn't shop a equipment for the sake of retribution or revenge besides the reality that it would not cut back violent crime, fees lots better than alternatives and, worst of all, can carry approximately the nightmare of executing somebody for against the regulation he didn’t commit. The worst element approximately that's that harmless human beings each and every so often get convicted and sentenced to dying. you may't opposite an execution. The dying penalty equipment has different flaws: It would not cut back violent crime. It fees a superb deal better than life in penal complex. It would not even prepare to the worst crimes, yet to defendants with the worst legal experts. life with out parole is presented in 40 9 states (all different than Alaska.) It skill precisely what it says, and spending the remainder of your life locked up, with out wish of ever being loose, is not any picnic. reward: decrease cost than the dying penalty if somebody serving LWOP seems to be harmless, he could be released.

Answer 9

Yes, I've always said there's hypocricy in the death penelty. We as a society abhorr murder so much we'lll kill you if you do it.

Answer 10

it is when a person takes another person's life that the killer loses his right to live. So the society needs to kill him.