People deserve to live, and when they get shot for no reason? Or for a reason, doesn't matter, the person that killed them should be killed. Its an unfair advantage towards everyone! The death penalty is appropriate no matter what the circumstance is. People that have killed, should be killed.
I in no way want to feed a murderer for the rest of his life. Kill them. Drug dealers do not deserve to live around murderers. Kill the murderers. Murderers live their entire life in a cell, what kind of life is that. Kill them. Murderers are of no value to society. Kill them.
Need I say more?
Letting a person to live who killed "knowingly and deliberately" killed someone is irrational
1) they will cause a heavy cost on exchequer suppose if given 15 yrs jail or 5 yrs asylum or rehabilitation.
those who believe they can be utilised for economic reasons and can be productive should look at the current budget of prisons of any nation.
2) STATE OF MIND: there is provision for defence in every constitution to prove either the murder was unintentional, unevitable, for defence purpose or the convict was not is a normal state of mind and many such cases. In all suc cases, the convict is never giver capital punishment. in almost all nations, number of capital punishment is less than 10% of the murder cases of that time. So all we left are the people who killed for some heinous purpose, like rape, money etc.
3) Rehabilitation program do not gaurantee any change. for a criminal mind of that extent, assuming even 50% success is superficial. now even considering that by preventing death of 10 people who have killed 10 innocents already, you would have killed 5+2.5+1.25+.65+.32 = about 10 innocents more. Does this sound ok, and that too when we assume that one killer will kill one person only.
4) All society works on the principle of fear, the lesser the punishment, lesser is fear and more will be the crime. reason why crime cases are very less in west Asian countries.
Give me one statistic that shows how many criminals end up being freed from jail and don't do the exact same thing over again. The pyschological issues that murderers and rapists have don't neccessarilly allow them to walk away from committing the same crimes. Why give them the opportunity to live a life that they had either taken or ruined. Go ahead and get their sad lives over with.
Capital punishment is good as it conveys the authority of the ruling institutions. Stopping many from committing a crime they know they will pay dearly for. This also gives justice to those whose family members were stolen from them by the whim of someone who thought they had the right. Furthermore Murderers forfeit the right to life when they take another, and they do so knowingly many a time. The implementation of capital punishment would furthermore take out a huge drain on the law abiding citizens taxes, as those they would normally have to pay for (in the form of prison care) are now gone. BUT It must be stressed in the cases of self defense, murder can be justified
Moral: if you take ones life away you lose your right to life. Legal: from a legal standpoint, only the racial objection stands. The courts say its okay to execute innocents, abd the problem there is greatly exaggerated. And the racial objection fails under RAND studies which I found to be the most comprehensive data. 3 researchers, one data set, 3 methodologies, same result: DP not racist. Society: 17 studies find deterrence.
I believe that truly heinous crimes, like mass murder, deserve a punishment that is just as severe, in order to send the message that these crimes are not to be tolerated in civilized society. For that reason, I do believe that capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for murder.
Yes, the use of capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for murder, because murder is the worst crime anyone can commit. And if the perpetrators know that, if they get caught, their lives would end, then hopefully this would dissuade at least some of them from committing this type of crime, and save some lives. This penalty should also get expedited more quickly, so it does not cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars per criminal to house them and file appeals.
My brother-in-law was killed by a person robbing a gas station, as he happened to walk in. I would have rather seen the murderer stay in prison to think, remember, and to hopefully see exactly what he had done. Not only to my brother-in-law but to our whole family. If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then the alternative better suits the crime.
Capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for certain types of crime. High treason, or heinous crimes like torture, rape, murder are appropriate for capital punishment. It is imperative that society protects its citizens from such brutal criminals, and the most sure way is execution. This will make others think twice before committing such acts, as well as show the inherent value of a human life by punishing those who snuff out innocent lives.
I believe that murder is a heinous crime. I also feel that they should be punished for their crimes. What I don't agree with is when we kill others for killing. How is this any better than what they did? God will still punish you if you kill, regardless of whether or not you felt justified in doing it. There is no justification for murder.
I believe there are too many errors that could possibly be involved in the "trial" process. It is a fact that people get falsely convicted and incarcerated only to be proven innocent years later. If you take into consideration crooked cops, shady lawyers, and the meek juror who is too timid to speak up and therefore votes with the majority then you would see how flawed the system can be. I am not suggesting that the majority of civil servants are bad, but everyone can make an error in judgement or a mistake in their job. I know many will argue the cost of keeping a murderer alive is outrageous but I just can't see how killing anyone can be justified by dollars and cents. California has a "3 strike" law when it comes to shoplifting which means on your third conviction you get 25 years to life in prison for stealing. If we got rid of ridiculous laws like that, then maybe housing a murderer for life wouldn't seem so costly.
In America, we act retroactively instead of proactively. We stand by while children are abused, neglected, and taught evils by their parents, and then punish them as adults when we are forced to see that the individual has problems. It is scientific fact that a child's upbringing causes the brain to make certain connections, and if a child isn't taught compassion, they won't feel it for others. We need to be proactive and protect children before they become murderers.
The government should not have the power to put people to death based on their convicted crimes. There are a lot of people who have been wrongfully put onto death row. It's too late for some of them, but fortunately others innocence have been proved. If the government is to put people to death based on extreme crimes, then they should have little to no margin of error when someone is convicted beyond all reasonable doubt.
Capital punishment is one of the sicker inventions of humanity - murder is one of humanities most despised crimes, and yet in order to punish people who perpetrate we do exactly the same to them. This is complete hypocrisy. In assuming we have the right to kill someone lawfully, we assume a hateful and inappropriate God-like role. Rather we should try and understand why someone carried out a murder, and whilst public safety should not be threatened, rehabilitation and reintegration of the murdered into society should be paramount.
Making the State a second murderer doesn't do anything to reverse the pain or bring back the victim. It serves as retribution, which is not the State's role. All the arguments have already been made - capital punishment costs more and is an ineffective deterrent, and spills innocent blood - so if anyone still endorses it, then revenge is their motive.
Perpetrators of murder are not deterred by the death penalty. The state of mind it takes to commit such an act "with malice aforethought?" Would not allow for such a rational conclusion to be made. With this one exception 1)the execution of someone convicted of murder. Otherwise why would the state take such precautions as having several switches or buttons pushed or otherwise engaged so the person who actually pulls the switch can plausibly deny that he or she has actually committed the homicide. "is murder so bad we should murder you for it. What a horrible cycle. Have we learned nothing!
Murder is a high and horrible crime to commit, taking ones life even if they did or didn't do something wrong, taking the murders life is not the answer, even if in the saying "An eye for and eye" "A life for a life" it has no reason whatsoever to take that Murders life! I understand where most people come from and their sayings and such but giving two wrong's will never make a right.
If you kill some one for a mistake they have made, they will never have a chance to fix it the best they can, and learn not to do it again. Some people say that it is needed so the person cannot hurt anyone else. But when they are out of prison, the could have changed for the better, If they do change, it will be they're decision.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you stop another person for living because they had stopped someone from living it doesn't make anything better. It won't bring back the person, that just takes away someone second chance to do better in their live, and help make other people's, lives better.