• It should be kept.

    The death penalty should be kept due to its moderate effectiveness to deter crimes that are punishable by it. Society has become weak, what happened to the way things were, being able to go to work knowing it would be there tomorrow, proving yourself and knowing that every time the death penalty is used there is one less criminal alive.

  • Capital Punishment is moral no doubt. This serves as an example to others.

    Executing the murderer will allow to prevent any further crimes and murders for occurring. I'd rather get 5 guys killed than another 100 innocent people. Lots of criminals commit murders beyond my understanding. Killing up to 20 people cannot be justified anyhow. Why should they be kept in prison and why should government spend money on them.
    The only thing, it must be done by the state, not some dumb religious sects. If anybody else does this - then its a crime.

  • It is not murder.

    Murder is the killing of an innocent victim. Those who are given the death penalty (murders) are neither innocent nor "victims".
    Also, the death penalty saves money. The cost of feeding and clothing a murderer for the rest of his or her life is enormous. Most murderers are relatively young and, therefore, will spend decades in jail, using up are hard-earned tax dollars. The price of a bullet for the execution is a lot less than keeping these killers alive.
    Lastly the death penalty is the most effective deterrent for murder known to exist. Virtually everybody is afraid of dying, Knowing that you will die for your crimes would make people think twice before pulling the trigger.

  • It's a justifiable form of punishment .

    The death penalty is a proper sentence to certain crimes . It's not sadistic fueled decision but for many a correct form of punishment to cases that adequately requires it . Also to point out the counter claim who states that we should not have a death penalty because criminals suffer more within prison is not the point it never the points to get as much misery to the convict but appropriately retribute justice not sadist pleasure a lot of anti death penalty have .

  • An eye for an eye has been around since biblical times

    Yes. If a person takes the life of another why should he or she be able to continue to live on this earth. Sometimes I do believe life in prison would be a better punishment, but then one has to look at how prisoners are treated in prisons. Some prisons are better than some middle class people are living; this is why many offenders re-offend. Until there is a system that deliver pure punishment for those that take another life the death penalty is moral and provide deadly justice.

  • A humane ending for the worst of the worst.

    I support the death penalty, but only under certain circumstances. I do not believe one should be executed for a single murder, no matter the motivation. Instead the death penalty should be reserved for people who are truly evil. Mass murders, serial killers, child rapists. People who have done horrible crimes repeatedly.

    If there is even the slightest doubt of them being innocent, they are not to be executed.
    And a quick death is far more humane than solitary confinement.

    In 99% of all cases I do not support the death penalty, but for that one percent of people who are simple evil, I do.

    You do not help a rabid dog, you shoot it before it bites you.

  • Yes, completely moral.

    Under the correct circumstances yes. If someone has the heart to kill another human being for no reason, unlawfully, inhumanely. Yes. They should be able to take the punishment themselves. Period point blank. Nothing to it. Could you stomach a person who has killed kids strolling around your neighborhood? I highly doubt it. That's all.

  • Morally right philosophically

    Loads of philosophical doctrines would support the death penalty. You could argue the death of a few immoral human beings would serve as the greater good for the test of humanity, as argued by utilitarianism. Also in my personal opinion if someone can do crimes so immoral, then they themselves can not be classified as human, and therefore should not be protected by human rights and should rather be treated as pests such as rats and cockroaches.

  • If you take a life, its only fair to give your life

    I say that if a person takes the life of someone then I don't think they can argue against being killed. If you take a life that when it comes down to it the only way I see it being fair is for your life to be ended, what comes around goes around.

  • Yes it is

    For people who say death is the easy way out that is untrue, death is the ultimate deterrent. The death penalty is the only acceptable punishment for taking a human life unlawfully and is the only moral action. The laws of western countries are based ultimately on ancient Jewish law which is the basis of all western morality and in which the death penalty was practised. The death penalty does not contradict Christian scripture. The argument for abolition on the grounds of defendants being wrongfully found guilty only serves to strengthen the case for common law, universal jury trial and open courts.

  • Murder is morally wrong.

    First off, by killing someone who has committed a crime, you are promoting a crime yourself: murder. If we believe that those who murder (or commit another crime) should be murdered, then why not kill the executioner of the murderer? In fact, we condemn people like Kim Jong Un and Amadenejad who institute government-ordered execution of their citizens, so why do we do the same. Society needs to end this reasoning that revenge is the only solution to our problems.

    For those of you who are obsessed with justice for criminals, think of it this way: With the death penalty, the suffering for the criminal ends in an instant, while with life imprisonment, the suffering and regret will go on for decades and decades. The prisoner is more likely to regret their crime and repent for it with a life sentence than think of themselves as a martyr for their cause with a death sentence.

    I would also like to point out that patients with mental illnesses may be inadvertently killed by the death penalty. Mentally ill people commit crimes due to their disability, and killing them wont stop mental illnesses. Instead sending these people to mental health clinics will directly deal with their problem at hand.

    Lastly, killing someone responsible for the crime will not reverse the events or bring back the victim of the crime. Once they're dead, they're dead, and nothing, not even revenge, will apply "justice" to the situation. In fact, killing the convict will only bring more conflict into the situation. As mentioned before, convicts are more likely to repent for their sins with a life sentence. Therefore, the healing will only being when the victim's loved ones and the criminal begin to forgive each other.

    Which brings me to my last point: Forgiveness. Imposing the death penalty will eliminate the chances of the criminal wanting to redeem themselves for their mistakes. It's not impossible for people to change their views on their mistakes, so criminals can do the same. By sentencing life in prison, you're giving the criminal time to think about their mistakes.

    In the sense of morals and practical issues, the death penalty is a negative impacting decision that was made by the government, which should be repealed for these reasons.

  • It reduces society to the ethical level of the murderer

    Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? This is the most twisted logic I've ever heard. Do the criminals really deserve to die? Probably not. Does the government really deserve the right to kill its own citizens? Absolutely not.

  • The Ironic Twist

    People can be put on death row for taking someone else's life, so the punishment would be doing the same thing to that person? Rotting in jail is a worse punishment than immediately being killed and not feeling any other punishment, there are other ways to punish someone in a worse way.

  • Morally wrong I.M.O.

    Whether guilty or innocent, the death penalty is wrong, if innocent even more so. Even if someone has killed multiple people, it is horrible but cannot be reversed. If an execution would resurrect the victim back to life I might become a supporter of the death penalty overnight, but it does not. It is certainly unusual punishment in the sense that it is the only punishment I can think of that mimics the crime, not in the details but the end result is the same. Just think about it, you don' t burgle a burglar or rape a rapist and yet you kill a killer. I find that odd. You might argue that some convicts are just too dangerous to be left alive, well I agree. I don' t know how many of those Hannibal Lector like people actually exist in the real world, but there might be some. Someone who would try to kill at any given opportunity and who would be too dangerous even in solitary confinement ( for the prison staff) is a serious problem. If there really is no other way to prevent this person from committing further violence or murder then I think an execution is justified. After all it would be even more immoral to either willfully take the risk of prison fatalities or lock this person up and not attend to him at all so he will die of starvation. In such a case however I view the execution not as a penalty, but purely as prevention. That is my point, I still hold that execution as a penalty is going too far and is morally wrong. One other reason imo might be voluntary execution, actually euthanasia, for inmates who would rather die than spend the rest of their lives in prison. As long as there is no hope they will get out and they are sane and know what they want I see no problem. I am not a Christian who would say all life is sacred, I just think any killing without consent (as is euthanasia) is murder and criminal. And once again this is not a penalty. The problem with this is the life sentence itself which I believe is quite common in the U.S, but is very rare here in Europe. In my opinion the U.S is too harsh on criminals and we are too soft. Something in between, without the death penalty, would probably be best but that is another point of debate.

  • Immoral and against the law

    The Constitution grants everyone the right to life, once a person's life is ended, the right is violated. Furthermore, it is a sin for those that read a Bible... In addition to all this, the death penalty is not the only solution to deter crime and murder, there are other alternatives such as life imprisonment... If people see the death penalty as moral and a solution, doesnt that become a revenge and not a punishment... Then that is why we need to consider the reasons of ever bringing the concept of PUNISHMENT.

  • No it is not moral it is LOGICAL…

    The death penalty should be used to eliminate any harmful factor in society to benefit the greater good. Many criminals are apathetic towards others' suffering, maybe even sadistic. Thus, to ensure society's safety, the death penalty will help remove these criminals that will only create suffering and psychological scars on its victims. A lifetime imprisonment sentence seems more civilized yet criminals are not civilized. The only language they understand is barbarism. The wrong person may be put to death yet it is a small (very small) probability since society's technology has improved over the decades.

  • No. Until the human being is made perfect, the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished.

    Oddly, the acquittal and release of a guilty murderer and the conviction and execution of an innocent individual are two sides of the same coin of injustice. One flip of the coin results in the relatively minor betrayal of a victim's sense of morality (and, in capital cases, the victim is usually deceased and thankfully immune from the emotional pain inflicted).

    The flip side of the coin is a tragedy of unfathomable immoral consequences. Sending an innocent individual to prison, assigning a conscious, sentient, thinking, feeling human being into forced captivity, demanding they sacrifice their right to freedom, the pursuit of happiness, all the inalienable privileges afforded to decent humans by natural and synthetic law - when they bear no responsibility whatsoever for the injustice they are accused of - is not only immoral, it's unconscionable.

    Think about that. That is assigning another human being to the experience of living in a horror story. Moreover, that kind of injustice can happen to anyone. In light of the number of cases recently overturned on DNA evidence, as well as the cases of people who were absolved by evidence but remain behind bars on technicalities, it no longer makes moral sense to support something with such heinous implications.

    As imperfect beings, we must stop presuming to play God, and reinvest our energies in addressing the fundamental cause of crime – an unequal playing field of economic opportunity. America's incarceration rates are now the highest in the world. Yes, you read that right: the world. We imprison more of our citizens in than Iran, Iraq, Mexico and Russia. We are too rich, too powerful, and presumably too smart, to be the country that incarcerates more of their citizens than any other country on earth. Surely, we are better – more moral - than that.

  • No

    Here is the deal, why don't we go about educating the public that killing is wrong, and if you do it we will kill you. So the mixed signal of you can't kill but the government can kill is one that people would become accustomed too and thus the value of human life is reduced. This is the logic of two wrongs making a right which is mind bogglingly stupid on so many levels. It does not act as a deterrent either - people have killed since people have existed and will continue to kill until the end of our species. Further to this is provides an escape to people who face a life of prison - do the crime, do the time and that time should be as long as they live. They should sit in a dark room for the rest of their lives away from other people and be made to think about whether what they did was worth it. The death penalty also doesn't take into account the fact that some innocent people have been framed for murder before. Death is irreversible (unless you lived 2000 years ago, but that's a different debate), and so if the person is proven innocent after they are executed, the judge, jury and executioner are all guilty of murder themselves...

  • Definitely not

    I can't honestly say that I believe the death penalty is moral, even though I'm all for it. Being moral means that we should not kill anyone, even if they do deserve it. The death penalty does not hold this definition, so it is not moral and against a lot of social norms/religions.

  • Not Moral.

    The death penalty is not moral. There is always a possibility that the wrong person could be put to death. Even if it was the right person, letting them get the easy way out may not be the best way to punish them, so really, it's just a bad idea. It should be banned.

Research this topic: United States
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.