Of course it is moral as it is a matter of rights. Any individual convicted of taking the life of another or any other crime warranting a life sentence has proven his/her disregard for the rights of others and therefore has no rights of their own. These kinds of individuals should be removed from society permanently. Sure there are times when the innocent are falsely convicted but there are just as many times when the guilty are falsely found innocent. No judicial system is perfect and there is not a high percentage of false convictions.
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.
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.
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 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
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).
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 .
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.
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.
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.
It is revenge. Basically, we are saying that we can kill people because they killed someone? It is very hypocritical. A quick death? I suggest you do your research on you know the electric chair or hanging or the firing squad or lethal injections gone wrong. How is that a quick death? Oh wait, it's not.
What gives us the right as human beings to kill people. We kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong. When has that become right to do. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, the people could change but you would not of given them the chance to change. We are being hypocrites by saying you can't kill someone but I can kill you.
It's hypocritical to kill someone because they've killed. Any crime for that mater, we just don't get to choose who lives and dies. We can keep them in prison for life, but we don't get to kill someone in cold blood. That makes us no better than the criminal. There's always the chance the person can realize the wrong they have done, if we kill them while they are still a monster, they will never get that chance.
A murder is when a person's life is taken by another intentionally, excluding things like war. So, is capital punishment not murder? Yes, it is. It is the deliberate taking of a human life by another. Basically, our courts are dissuading murder by murdering. That does not work, as studies have shown. Finally, it is not justice. It is retribution. And retribution is not always good.
Revenge is stupid, petty, and pretty much pointless. People claim that death row is there in order to better protect society, but have you seen the death row lock-up prisons? Those criminals look pretty darn locked-up to me. I don't think they'll be any danger to society, thanks, locked up there. But instead of just leaving them locked up there, we have to kill them. Why? They are still human beings, even if they are murderers or whatever else. Also, while this isn't extremely common, sometimes the court is wrong and the person on death row is innocent. At least when you're innocent and in jail you have time to try and make a case for yourself. Not so on death row. You can try and appeal but if there's not a lot of evidence in your favor then you're going to die. Simple as that.
Also, many criminals have a change of heart while in prison. They feel genuinely guilty. Not all, but many. Obviously, I don't think they should be let out - you can always fake sincerity - but at least give them a chance to live and to "make up" for their mistakes.
Do you remember a time in your life when someone hurt you in some way and you took revenge on them? It probably didn't end well. Revenge is not a good thing. I mean, seriously, if the Jews who survived the Holocaust had taken revenge on all their Nazi imprisoners... Well... That would have resulted in the deaths of many, many people. Revenge is not a good thing and is not justifiable. Death row is revenge - a life for a life. It's not about protection or some nonsense like that.
As uncommon as it is today, there are times in which the death penalty has killed an innocent person, and if that becomes the case, that goes around and bites the government in the ass. Because the government just commited murder, does that mean the government has just commited a crime? Regardless, humans cannot judge one another, the mass murderer might be insane, the the double homocide might have been protecting himself. U never know
The death penalty is immoral. It is hypocritical. Yes, killing someone is terrible and something that no one should ever do. But, just because someone killed someone does not give the government the right to kill a human being. It is still an act of murder no matter who does the killing. Also, life imprisonment is a hell of a lot worse than getting to die. So if you people really want to punish these criminals, let them rot in jail instead.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. I will not say that murder is a minor crime, but there are punishments that do not require murder. I would be happy to put these people in solitary for life, but even if they killed someone, I wouldn't kill them.
It does NOT matter if they are innocent or not!! We are not all innocent. We have ALL done things that we are not proud of! The Bible and the Constitution both say that we should not kill so where in the Constitution does it say that the Government is allowed to kill!?! What makes them exempt? Does it give justice for the families that the murderers killed? NO!! Killing there murders is NOT going to bring them back to life is it?
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.