Amazon.com Widgets
  • 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.

  • The death penalty IS moral.

    The death penalty helps with the justice with the criminals around the community. The morality to this punishment is for the criminal (and others for this matter) to interpret the actions and the wrong in them. Please note that the criminal action may be inhumane but the punishment is hence 'an eye for an eye'. Think about it if one of your family members was killed by a murderer and the murderer's punishment is the death penalty would it not be humane to not only you but to the rest of the society? -Alani 12-year old

  • In extreme circumstances only and when there is no doubt

    Generally I am against the death penalty but in cases where the defendant is proven (100 percent) guilty of the offense and when there are no extenuating circumstances (ie Random killings) I am all for it. I think the main risk is borderline cases so the burden of proof must be on the prosecutor to make it not just beyond doubt but have absolute proof (eg Video footage + DNA + ballistics).

  • One of the commandments

    If the bible, the government, and some American's say that is it wrong. Doesn't that mean the government mean they are breaking the law. Also Just the cost of killing just one person is about $2,300,000, while keeping someone in jail for the rest of their likes is just three.Five times less.

  • 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.


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