Amazon.com Widgets
  • Why should tax money be used for a convicted murderer?

    Every state in the union needs to be more engaged on why convicted murderers are left to die in prison?! Why not an eye for an eye, and if convicted, be put to death! Can't do the time, don't do the crime, but, wait, maybe we should more liberal, yikes!

  • Child protection, both immediate and long term.

    Children are taught to look to adults for both care and guidance. These persons look for self gratification. The result is they get what they want leaving society to pick up the pieces. The trauma these children suffer can only be imagined.The chances of them having a full loving relationship are negligable,unfortunately we can only try to help todays victims.Capitol punishment can guarantee no reoffending and a sure deterrent for all but the most determined offender

  • An eye for an eye, is the way I feel it should be.

    If someone murders someone, they should be put to death themselves. Every other animal in the world that kills a person is hunted down and killed. I do not see why it should be any different with our own kind. People that murder do not deserve to be on this earth with us.

    Posted by: 5c0tJung
  • Capital punishment is a just punishment, because some crimes are so heinous that anything less than death is too little.

    Capital punishment is an extreme punishment, and that is why it should only be used for extreme crimes. Some crimes are so heinous, however, that the death penalty is more than justified. An example would be a mass-murderer or terrorist who remains unrepentant about their crime. It would be an insult to allow such criminals to live peacefully for the rest of their lives off of the taxpayers who they wronged.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • I agree that capital punishment is just punishment, because it is a strong deterrent to organized crime.

    The death penalty is an important deterrent to organized crime. And, if it did not exist, far more people would attempt to get away with vile crimes. Murder and rape would be far more commonplace, and a civilized society cannot afford to allow that, if it is to survive. The death penalty acts as a warning to all that, if you cross the line, that terrible decision you made will be your last.

    Posted by: ClutteredHai44
  • I support the death penalty, because I see no reason to waste money keeping prisoners in jail for life.

    Capital punishment is a just punishment, because the government must pay to keep the prisoners in jail for life, if they are not sentenced to death. It would be much cheaper for the government to just give convicted criminals the chair, instead of keeping them in jail for life and wasting money.

    Posted by: MaliciousIke
  • If a severe crime is committed, then a just penalty should be rendered to fit the crime.

    I am a firm believer in capital punishment. The only way to deter crime is to have punishment set in stone. When people commit crimes, they are most likely aware of the punishment for the crime committed. For those people who commit murder, they are aware that they probably will be facing a life sentence, or possibly a death sentence.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • yes

    I agree very strongly with capital punishment. Yes it may be costly and innocent people may be killed but for every REAL criminal we put to death its less children killed or raped, less murders commited and even animal abusers. Every criminal should pay. If you take a life, your own life should be taken!!

  • Yes, but differently.

    I support the idea of capital punishment, but based on the crime and the solid evidence again said person. If you know for a dead on solid fact that a man raped a women, or a person killed another person. A bullet is a lot cheaper then the chemicals it takes to kill and doesn't cost the government much to keep them in jail until death. On the spot death by a single bullet that is cheap to make. I say you lose your rights the second you either kill someone or scar someone sexually for life.

  • Some crimes are just so hideous that the perpetrator no longer deserves to live.

    There are people in this world who are so savage that they can not live in society without reigning terror and murder on their fellow man. I believe the ultimate punishment (death) is well warranted for ultimate crimes- like those of serial killers. To do any less in terms of punishment is to dishonor the victims.

    Posted by: tabundes
  • Human did not create life, he has no right to take it either. D.

    Well, yes, eye for an eye, tit-for-tat, good notions, but just think about it! Is it going to reduce the pain and agony of the victims or their families? By no means! Is it going to improve the standards of our society? This perpetual cycle of voilence, better called as "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT" is a mere display of brutality and thus it is nowhere close to justice. D.

  • Because of the possibility of errors, capital punishment should not exist, regardless of the judicial aspects.

    Although a convicted killer may have capital punishment considered as a just punishment, there is never a reason to take a chance on killing an innocent person. Because our justice system is not perfect, and innocent people are often found guilty, capital punishment cannot be risked in a civilized society.

    Posted by: DisillusionedGilberto67
  • Although many convicts may deserve death our system is not absolutely perfect, therefore we must abolish capitol punishment to avoid killing innocent people.

    There are too many examples of people being executed who were innocent. It isn't right to take that chance and the justice system, as a human system, will never be perfect. It is cheaper for tax payers to keep the convict jailed for life and this also allows for the person to be eventually set free if he/she is later found to be innocent.

    Posted by: SingBentl
  • I don't feel like any one should be able to decide that someone else's life should end regardless.

    In my opinion a killer deserves to be tortured and they deserve to be punished but it should end with jail as far as we are concerned. In the end the only one who can change this is God and he decides the fate of this killer. When this killer is to die should be up to God and God alone, when this killer dies he will be judged by God and may suffer a fate worse than anyone could ever imagine.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy
  • No, capitol punishment is not a just punishment for any crimes committed because it is wrong to kill someone that no longer poses a threat.

    Capitol punishment is not a just punishment for anyone because life in prison is sufficient enough. Life in prison takes the threat out of a criminal so execution is not needed. It should never be okay to kill someone who is no longer a threat to society, and just letting someone exist is not posing a threat. Also it is proven that life in prison is less expensive than capitol punishment to the American tax payer.

    Posted by: SlayClim
  • Premeditated killing is wrong, even if it's done by the state (with one exception).

    The state proscribes premeditated killing for good reason. The state needs to set an example by doing the minimum necessary to prevent a convicted murderer from continuing to kill. Most of the time, imprisonment will suffice. In the rare case where a convicted murderer kills in prison, the death penalty may be justified as a defensive measure, since even prisoners aren't safe in that regard. Imprisonment also allows the convicted killer to redeem himself, even if in some small way. While a convicted killer may not be able to be released as a matter of protecting society, there are still many things a prisoner can do (write books, lead religious studies, etc.).

    Posted by: 54uIIan
  • No, Capitol Punishment is not acceptable as it is both impractical and immoral.

    In terms of practicality, it costs the state more money to execute a convicted felon than it does to imprison that criminal for life. This is due not only to legal expenses, but the higher cost of incarceration on death row. On a more important note, the death penalty is not infallible. Recent breakthroughs in DNA technology have exonerated death row inmates. The execution of a single innocent person is grounds to reject this immoral practice.

    Posted by: OrIanBot
  • If we kill criminals, some human being has to do the killing., so what are we going to do with the people who kill people for a living?

    If it's not good for vigilantes, the criminal, the bored, the insane, and so forth and so on to kill/harm other people because they were motivated to, then certainly the state, which is a group of people acting in concert can't have any good reason to kill anyone, it's not like the offender can learn from the punishment of being killed. However the people who are doing the killing will have to go home and go on, and it's assumed that the killer hired by the state had nothing to do with the original crime whether murder, other horrible crime, or, dare I say, when the person being executed is in fact not guilty in the first place, they are just as much that other person's killer.

    Posted by: groovybox
  • Once you kill someone, it's permanent.

    First, it's hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone. That in and of itself is wrong. second, because many criminals on trial for capital offenses are poor, they cannot afford to hire a decent defense attorney. Prosecutors, hungry to win a big case, will pull out all the stops to ensure a conviction. This combination pretty much ensures that innocent people will end up getting convicted. there is no doubt in my mind that many innocent people have been executed throughout the decades. Does that mean we should execute the state itself for killing innocent people?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.