if you end someone's life, if you murder someone, then you deserve to be murdered as well, its simple as that. An eye for an eye. If you murder someone in cold blood by the laws of common sense you deserve equal severity in your punishment as in the crime you committed. that is what our society should demand lest we become unjust in our judgement and let the scales of justice tip too far. Also if the immediate and only sentencing for murder was death then i would think murder rates might considerably drop.
Deterrence means that when people are punished, they are likely to still re-commit the crime. Therefore, imprisonment does nothing and further steps must be taken. Another reason why the death penalty is OK is because it saves money, because the gov. does not need to spend on food, water, facilities, etc. for the person at jail.
A sever violation of the social contract can only equate to a severe punishment in return. Not one of suffering and cruelty, yet simply the sanction of one's life due to the lack of deservingness. You can't stand here and look me in the eye and tell me that a man who would brutally murdered his wife and kids deserves the privaledge of living in this world. One who shot down an innocent man in cold blood. You can not tell me that the woman who shot down the life of an innocent 14 year old kid in my neighborhood deserves the privaledge to flourish in the beautiful planet. Capital Punishment in justified only in the case of a fair retribution for a ravage crime comitted.
If the people that commit severe crimes are penalized for their actions. The other people that are thinking of committing similar crimes with think twice on the consequences they might suffer if they decide to commit the crime even though they know they are wrong. If they can, for example, kill someone from no reason what so ever, then the government should have the power to decide what to do with this person, and the best way would be to kill them.
The death penalty, in some cases, must be done. It is very hard for a rational person to argue against this. There are surely some cases in which the death penalty should be used. For example, let us think about Hitler. This man and his perverted beliefs was responsible for the killings of millions of innocent human beings. Everyone from men, women, children, and even babies. He was also responsible for one of the worst atrocities ever made in the history of mankind. Namely, the holocaust.
The death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for this monster and his heinous crimes. I believe that we are completely justified in punishing people like Hitler with the death penalty because they really deserve it. Indeed, if the punishment should fit the crime, then the death penalty is what fits these heinous crimes made by Hitler. Anything less would be a failure to approximate justice and to carry out minimally deterrence..
Some is better than none. Although the death penalty should be altered, it should be more public and cheaper. Bring back the cost effective hanging. It will save the taxpayers money and by making it public it will remind people how serious the community is about it. This would not necessarily be pretty but not all pretty things are effective.
The death penalty is justified because some crimes are only punished by inflicting the same type of pain and suffering on the criminal as the criminal inflicted on the victim. This must only occur when without a shadow of a doubt that crime was committed by the criminal on death row. If there is a shadow of a doubt, life in prison is sufficient.
The Death penalty is needed in America. I believe that it is a strong deterrent for criminals. Texas has the death penalty, and it works great for us. The only problem is that they stay on death row too long. Why keep a person in prison for life when you can save the state money and just execute them. It is not like they have not been convicted by a jury of an act of murder. I really don't by the whole pain and suffering argument. Who cares if they are in pain? They are being put to death for a reason.
If a person takes an other person's life and it is not in self defense or preventing a crime then yes that person should be put to death. If the criminal that kills a person does it just because or for fun then why should he not be put to death did he give his victim any sympathy I don't think so or the person would not have been killed so yes under certain crimes this should be a punishment.
The ideas that the death penalty is inhumane or ineffective as a deterrent to crime are both incorrect. Proverbs 19 says that a hot tempered man must pay the penalty, if you rescue a hot tempered man you will have to do it again. If there is no penalty there is no order. As for the question of the death penalty being inhumane, the death penalty is a just penalty for a person who has maliciously taken human life.
How can a side that argues that criminals don't deserve to die because they would suffer, not recognize that imprisonment, and rehabilitation are just as cruel?
When you send criminal to prison or put him on probation as a society, temporary or not, you deprive him of freedom of association, limit his access to the world, and cause him suffering by forcing our revenge upon the criminal. Did Jesus not say turn the other cheek?
The only moral way to deal with criminals is to appeal to there better side, run, defend our selves (only as needed to stop the crime.)
How does being secure by incarcerating and causing suffering to others, not make us any worse? It's not that they are innocent, it is just that we have no right to harm them in return, its the same reason we don't cheer any more for the kid who strikes back at the bully who assaults him, he is just as evil as his oppressor when he lowers himself, and so are we. The death penalty is only this tenfold.
In the case of Korea, there are about 60 death-row criminals waiting to die. But there has been no capital punishment that has been enforced in past 14 years. Nevertheless, being sentenced death and yet still living can actually be more painful than a death. Everyday, death-row criminals wake up in fear if the day has came. Every time they are called out of their cells for whatever reason, they suffer fear of death since it can be their call for the injection. Maybe making their life so miserable this way is in fact a better "eye for an eye".
No-one is entirely good or bad-saintly or evil we are a mixture of both. So when a person commits horrendous and unthinkable crimes against another or others then I believe there is hope of redemption. There are times that we must forgive a person or people their wrong doings to bring peace to ourselves. It is not acceptable also when a person has been executed for this to be seen as a celebration- what does this say about them -are they rejoicing that justice has been served or that a person has had their life ended prematurely because they made a mistake or wrong choice which being a human being we are all inclined to do- no-one is immune from this. It gives me no comfort when I witness this as they are condoning ending a life with such ease and that in itself shows moral corruption and it is exactly this as to why capital punishment should not be carried out- it festers away at our ability to forgive and move on and replaces it with bitterness, hatred and contempt for our less fortunate members of society who are the most in need of our support and understanding.
Killing someone for killing other people is both hypocritical and unjust. Maybe seeing the person who killed someone you know and love would give you peace, but it won't bring them back. Not to mention, maybe the prosecuted has a family as well. Does anyone think about them? Offer comfort and condolences? No. They throw them from society, saying they were close to a murderer and are just as bad. Plus, crimes are acts of revenge. Revenge isn't without reason. And no one ever asks what that reason is before it's too late.
It is quite simple to say that a person(perpetrator) who is supposed to be hang is justified but will it satisfy anybody's conscience? Will it put an end to that type of crime? The answer to that is a big NO. Take, for example, a terrorist being hanged for killing people. He might be deserving that simply considering the severity of the crime, but it will not bring the crime to an end, which should be our main agenda.
One of the primary aims of the criminal justice system is to attempt to rehabilitate the criminal in order to both prevent the repetition of the crime by that individual, and to improve the life of that criminal. It is unjustified to take a life for a mistake they made.
The cost to pay for executions is too high, for example from the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008):
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” That is too high of an amount of money. Not to mention that this goes against almost every religion. However, there are some cases where life in prison is not acceptable for the crime the inmate has committed. In those few cases the death penitently should be allowed, but not as much as it has been going on.
The problem with the death penalty is that the punishment of death can never be reversed, that is to say death is final. To deal a punishment of this severity, two unattainable conditions must be met: 1. A person must be impartially adjudicated to be worthy of such a punishment; 2 A person must be proved to have committed this crime beyond any doubt.
1.A person cannot be impartially adjudicated to be worthy of the death penalty because morality changes based on a society's culture. A deed worthy of the death penalty at one point in time could not be worthy of it at another, due to changes in a society's morality. Therefore, since morality changes, and justice is based on morality e.g. the belief it is wrong to kill is a moral decision, it is unjustifiable to punish someone in a way that cannot be changed or reversed to reflect the changes in societies' morals.
2. The death penalty is unjustifiable because it is impossible to prove a person to have committed this crime beyond any doubt. Since death is irreversible, the need to prove beyond any doubt is an inherent condition of the death penalty. To prove beyond any doubt is impossible( think all the moon landing conspiracy theories),because, evidence is based on a society's culture, and evidence is never irrefutable. This condition protects those who are convicted on flawed evidence from an irreversible punishment and those that are convicted on correct evidence that proves their guilt, but only to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, an inherent condition of the death penalty is the need to prove beyond any doubt, due to its irreversible nature, and this is impossible to be met because all evidence proves guilt only to an extent.
Capital punishment brings about a culture of death, violence and revenge. The only thing an execution truly offers is the illusion of government-approved "closure." Thousands of people desperately seek this, but may they not ever find it here. If they refuse to forgive what has happened in their hearts, families will never feel true, lasting peace and justice.
A wise man said, if you cannot give life as a reward, you cannot give death as a punishment. If we cannot give life to people, what right do we have to take their life. If killing is a crime, how can we remove that crime from the society by committing the same crime again. And it is such a simple thing to understand that a man who has murdered someone is basically psychologically sick. He should be sent to a nursing home, not the gallows. Death sentence is nothing more or less than revenge. The man went against the society, the society is prepared to take him down. Death sentence is barbaric. It cannot be part of a civilized world.