Amazon.com Widgets
  • So long as it's never used on an innocent.

    I see no moral problems with the death penalty as long as we make absolutely sure of the persons guilt and that it's reserved only for the most heinous crimes. The insane shouldn't be subject to the death penalty, nor should it be used for crimes that don't result is a loss of life. Honestly, I see life imprisonment as a far harsher punishment than a humane death.

  • Just Imagine If....

    You had a child or somebody you knew got taken out in the middle of the woods and got raped, abused, and then killed. Do you think that person should live? No I don't think that's right what-so-ever. "An eye for and Eye"= A life for a life. They shouldn't be able to just get a free pass to prison... They are getting off to easily. The death penalty is the way to go.

  • Someone who rips the guts out of small, vulnerable and innocent children deserves the death penalty...

    I agree with the death penalty because I believe that there are some people in existence who are able to commit crimes that have no justifiable punishment except death. Also, there should be complete and authentic evidence including forensics, valid witness evidence and any other means of valid evidence for the death penalty to be passed. The detectives should also have to agree with the passing of the penalty although if the victim’s family forgives the offender, the death penalty should no longer be effective.

  • Someone who rips the guts out of small, vulnerable and innocent children deserves the death penalty...

    I agree with the death penalty because I believe that there are some people in existence who are able to commit crimes that have no justifiable punishment except death. Also, there should be complete and authentic evidence including forensics, valid witness evidence and any other means of valid evidence for the death penalty to be passed. The detectives should also have to agree with the passing of the penalty although if the victim’s family forgives the offender, the death penalty should no longer be effective.

  • 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.

  • Government Sanctioned Revenge Killing

    Why is it okay for the government to kill people but whenever an average person does it, it's not okay. That's called hypocrisy. What is it telling people? It's not okay for you to do it, just me. Also, these are human lives the government is taking. Not some inhuman thing.

  • Government Sanctioned Revenge Killing

    Why is it okay for the government to kill people but whenever an average person does it, it's not okay. That's called hypocrisy. What is it telling people? It's not okay for you to do it, just me. Also, these are human lives the government is taking. Not some inhuman thing.

  • Why continue the violence?

    By taking the life of someone who made a mistake in their life is only continuing the cycle of violence. Putting criminals behind bars and not letting see family or sunlight is a harsh enough punishment, people should not be killed like this. Continuing the violence is not going to take the problem of crime away.

  • It is completely IMMORAL.

    Who is to say who lives and who dies? How is it that one can decide another's fate? We don't live in the Babylonian times anymore; we don't need to solve everything through "an eye for an eye". We have evolved from that, we aren't as so black and white as we were before.

  • A lifetime of removal from society should be the only maximum a state places on any criminal

    I can't imagine a case in which the state would arrange for a a state sanctioned rapist to clinically rape someone advised of rape. We do not steal things from thrives as a moral or judicial policy. The death penalty, when acted on by the state, is a barbaric postmen's and idiotic response. No civilized countryhas the death penalty. Yes.. I mean you USA! However...... I have no problem with certain daisy non mentally ill persons emailing on jail for a lifetime.

  • Let people forgive themselves.

    No it is not moral, it's like revenge. You are murdering a murder which is the same thing. That is stooping to low. People need to be able to forgive themselves and plus too many innocent people are put on death row, there's even been an innocent man executed. This thing needs to be banned.

  • Let people forgive themselves.

    No it is not moral, it's like revenge. You are murdering a murder which is the same thing. That is stooping to low. People need to be able to forgive themselves and plus too many innocent people are put on death row, there's even been an innocent man executed. This thing needs to be banned.

  • 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.


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