Amazon.com Widgets

Is the death penalty justified if the crime did not result in a loss of life?

  • YES - When the crime is a sexual act upon a child.

    One:
    People who literally tear open a child to commit a sexual crime upon a small child are not human, therefore, not befitting HUMANE treatment. They serve NO VALUE to society at all and must be taken out of the gene pool.

    Two:
    The average pedophile commits a child molestation 260 times during their lifetime. Over 90% of convicted pedophiles are arrested again for the same crime after release from prison. (Sex-offenders.us).

    More than 78% of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within two years. (California Dept of Corrections).

    Final Decision:
    These "violators of children" must be put to death.

  • I agree that the death penalty is justifiable if the crime significantly affects the victim's emotional, physical, or mental health.

    When a person is raped, beaten to a vegetable, or terminally depressed or forced into another type of emotional, physical, or mental health disease or condition, it is like taking their life away.

    Posted by: AllenF
  • Death penalty is a way of ensuring criminals do not again walk free to harm others.

    When somebody obviously evil has committed an unimaginably disgusting crime, it cannot be forgiven. Letting them live is like spitting in the face of the victim.

  • Some crimes are inexcusable

    And if you ask me, we are not tough enough on those crimes. There are so many people that survive criminal acts that live with that pain the rest of their lives. I am a parent and can only imagine the pain of a child that was abused. All those that can hurt another being in that manner should have to pay since they are leaving someone with immense pain that they will live with the rest of their lives. While death may be inappropriate for shop lifting or knocking over a jewelry store the punishment should fit the crime.

  • I agree because some crimes can be bad whether the victim/s are killed or not

    I believe the death penalty is more than justified whether or somebody died as a result. I believe that some crimes can be a great deal worse if the victim/s survive. For example, if someone set your house on fire with the whole family and everyone got out apart from 1 child. The firefighters rescue him, but he's extremely burnt and will be scarred for the rest of his life, then that to me means the victim, and the rest of the family will live with that for the rest of their lives.

    Posted by: UrHen
  • Various serial felonies, yes.

    Serial rape, child molestation, and such should certainly be subject to death penalties. We have made virtually no progress in rehabilitating sex criminals. Many murders are spur of the moment or the result of specific circumstances with a relatively low chance of recidivism, and they may receive the death penalty; why shouldn't violent criminals with a high risk (or record) of repeat offenses pay the same price? After all, they too take lives - they may not kill their victims physically, but they leave emotional (and sometimes physical) scars that change people, sometimes irreparably.

  • In certain cases, yes

    If some idiot were to hurt a young kid so severely that the kid ends up in the hospital, he deserves to be executed. That is all there is to it, you simply NEVER hurt young kids, I don't give a fucking shit how the kid annoys you, violence is NEVER the answer, and I really think those asshole bullies should be taught a lesson.

  • In extreme cases of torture or rape, the death penalty can be a just sentence, even if there was no loss of life.

    Some crimes are so heinous, that the death penalty is warranted. These do not necessarily have to include loss of life. An attempt at loss of life can also justify the death penalty. For example, if a criminal shoots a victim in the head with clear intent to murder him, but that victim miraculously survives, the criminal should not receive any leniency. Also, in extreme cases of torture, rape, and mutilation, the death penalty can also be a just sentence.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • Certain predatory and violent acts do not result in the loss of life.

    Certain predatory and violent acts do not result in the loss of life. These acts, like rape and assault, could maim or cripple someone for life. This is the equivalent of the taking of a life and should result in death for the perpatrator.

  • Some crimes cause worse consequences than loss of life.

    Most able bodied people would rather die than become severely paralyzed. If a crime (such as a shooting) caused someone else to be severely paralyzed, the shooter deserves to be put to death as the life of the victim has become next to useless. In addition, the government has to spend money to keep the victim alive.

    Posted by: FeIBuddy
  • I think that the only thing that justifies the death penalty is killing someone else.

    I believe that it goes back to the saying "an eye for an eye". Someone should only be put to death as a punishment if they are guilty of taking someone else's life. Otherwise, imprisonment should be good enough for just about any crime that they might have committed. The death penalty is a very extreme thing to do so it should not be used lightly or for a large number of crimes.

  • Never justify a death penalty to those who has not commit murder.

    People who have been victim of crime are suffering most and Government is doing nothing to help. Instead they are working against the innocent people and covering up the abusers, those who commit crime. Open your eye Government. Work to help the victims, no one helps them, to busy thinking about death penalty?

  • No, they don't deserve to die.

    I do not support death penalty based on false accusations and false reports made by people who want to profit from others. Many times you come across that I don't like him/her, but if you look at it that way no one likes anyone, but that does not mean we can put them on death penalty or kill them, we have learn to ignore and move on.

  • Never.

    I do not believe it is right for the justice system to condemn a human being to death to teach that human that killing is simply and utterly wrong, you must teach what you preach otherwise it means nothing. The fact that there are also humans in which have been sent to death have been wrongly convicted - this alone proves that not all justice systems are correct. Death penalty is not justifiable at all.

  • The death penalty is never justified.

    The death penalty assumes that any one man has the right to take the life of another - no matter the reason. No matter the crime, it is no mans right - and certainly not the governments - to decide who lives and who dies. There is no such thing as a "humane" way to carry out the death penalty. The very act of taking another human life is inhumane.

  • No, the death penalty should only be used for cold-blooded murderers.

    I am a strong believer in capital punishment for cold-blooded murderers but do not see any benefit in using it for other crimes. If there is no loss of human life, capital punishment should not be imposed.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • I oppose the death penalty if the crime that is committed doesn't result in a loss of life, because an eye for an eye is the only reason the death penalty should be justified.

    The death penalty should only be reserved for crimes in which a loss of life has been recognized. I think that there has to be an eye for an eye justification process to the death penalty because, if there isn't, then where do we stop, and who decides the guidelines? Taking the life of another human being is something that has to be carried out with great discretion.

    Posted by: ToyMatt
  • The death penalty should only be used in extreme circumstances where someone's life was taken, due to the extreme nature of the punishment.

    The goal of prison should be rehabilitation, not punishment. Using the death penalty for crimes, other then those that result in loss of life, cheapens the use of it. This, coupled with the number of wrongful convictions, are the reasons that the death penalty should only be used for extreme crimes that involved loss of life.

    Posted by: HumdrumMilo83
  • Death should only be given in return for a death, because the punishment should fit the crime.

    The punishment should fit the crime and, under no circumstances, should it be morally correct to sentence someone to death, if they have not committed murder in the first place. If someone was to rob a bank at gunpoint, but did not shoot someone, the death penalty should not even be considered.

    Posted by: AmusingKareem
  • The death penalty is never justified, but especially in this case it wouldn't be, as the punishment should fit the crime.

    The idea of using the death penalty for someone who didn't murder anyone is plain revenge, and these feelings and actions lead to repeat cycles of revenge and increases the desire of the citizens to eliminate those that they don't approve of. The death penalty, if used, should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances, where the criminal isn't remorseful, and is likely to kill again, while in prison.

    Posted by: daveyxh

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