Is there any non-homicide crime that is horrifying enough to warrant execution?

  • I think that there are a few non-homicide crimes that should warrant the death penalty, such as any crime involving children.

    I think that even though a crime does not involve death, it can still be as devastating in nature. Crimes involving children, such as molestation, rape, torture, slavery and any crime that involves abuse, should be considered grounds for the death penalty. These children's lives are permanently damaged and changed. Even with counseling and support, there is never anything that can undo crimes of this nature.

    Posted by: UnsuitableRigoberto99
  • If certain horrifying crimes can be proven scientifically, without a reasonable doubt, yes they are worthy of the death penalty.

    There are a multitude of horrifying crimes that warrant execution. As long as the scientific and legal proof exists, then why not? There are cases of child abuse that are horrifying, sexual abuse that are horrifying, and many other cases that should be considered for execution. The only thing holding me back from being 100% on this question is the fact that we are all human, and humans make mistakes. This means that if we continually catch the wrong bad guys, and execute them, we will continue to make fools of ourselves.

    Posted by: PointlessElbert47
  • I agree there is a non-homicide crime that deserves execution and that crime is child molestation.

    Given the fact that sex offenders are incurable and given the fact that a person who is repeatedly victimized as a child will never ever be the same again I think execution is something to consider. The younger the victim and worse the abuse, the stronger the case for execution.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • I believe that the death penalty is warranted in some non-homicidal crimes, such as treason.

    In my opinion, there are several crimes that should result in the execution of the criminal, even though the crime did not result in the direct death of the victim. The most obvious case is that of treason, in which our countries security is compromised. Other cases would vary, according to the severity of the crime, such as egregious sexual abuse and/or torture of a person, especially a child, that results in the victim being so damaged as to affect their ability to live a normal life, such as causing a severe disability or coma.

    Posted by: ezuana
  • Yes, there are several particularly heinous non-homicidal crimes that can warrant the death penalty, based on just how disturbing they are.

    There are several crimes that, while non-homicidal in nature, are perhaps particularly malicious, such that they speak volumes about how deranged an individual is. Rape can be a particularly grievous crime, particularly due to the trauma that the victim undergoes. Rape takes over the sovereignty an individual has over their body.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • Sure, some crimes are so awful that, even when not taken to the extreme of murder, a death sentence is warranted.

    The first example that comes to mind for me is an incurable pedophile who has harmed dozens, if not hundreds, of innocents. That crime is so unspeakable, and carries such a heavy burden for the entire lives of victims, that it should be punished in the harshest possible manner. That manner would be to execute repeat and or chronic offenders.

    Posted by: tabundes
  • There are many non-homicide crimes, like the rape of a child, that are bad enough to warrant execution.

    The rape of a child should definitely be a capital crime. When a child is raped or sexually abused, they are changed for the rest of their life. Many people never recover from such abuse, and go on to lead wretched and shattered lives. Anyone who could do such a thing to a defenseless child deserves the death penalty.

    Posted by: M0r3Fire
  • Yes, I believe that execution may be a viable method for crimes apart from murder, such as rape.

    Josef Fritz was a man who repeatedly raped and impregnated his own daughter, while keeping her captive in a basement for 24 years. His horrifying crime, which traumatized the young woman beyond comprehension, is certainly worthy of death. I don't see why he should live and murderers should die. At least killing a person ends their suffering. But rape victims have to live with their torment. The death penalty is an act of retribution for the most part, and most violent rapists deserve it! He cannot be rehabilitated, and no one wants to pay for his existence. In real life, he might get out on parole in 15 years! This should NEVER happen, and that's why execution is a good idea.

    Posted by: R4yCher
  • Yes, there are some non-homicide crimes so serious that execution is demanded.

    The betrayal of one's country to our enemies is a serious crime with potentially severe consequences, even if the result is not the immediate death of someone. The damage done by traitors giving away state secrets can compromise the safety and security of our country. Also, some criminals who are repeat offenders such as child rapists, who also cause serious mental and physical harm to children should be considered for execution.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • Yes, there are many crimes that need to be treated more harshly than homicide, such as rape of children and selling them for money.

    There are many cases today which need to be treated at par with homicide, if not more severely. There do exist many homicide cases where sometimes the victim turns out to be more lethal than the killer that we actually end up sympathizing the killer. But if there is something that is much more horrifying, then it is ruining the lives of innocents, such as children. A rapist whose victim is a minor - especially a child - should be awarded instant death, in my opinion.

    Posted by: darknesse
  • Objection by the virtual lawyer.

    Capital punishment only would be justified if courts couldn't fail, if justice wouldn't commit errors. Every act of executing an innocent human being is an act of murder. Justice however does not claim itself to be infallible. The proof: the existence of lawyers. If courts would own the truth, lawyers wouldn't be necessary. And as long as this is the case, capital punishment deliberately accepts a certain rate of "state supported murder". How many of those murders are ethically acceptable? Ask any court in the world how many murders you legally can commit. The answer is: zero. Even if it could be justified for murder, capital punishment objectively is indefensible. The crucial point is not the severity of the crime, but the error probability of the court.

  • Death is the easy way out.

    If a crime truly seem so bad that it is punishable by death, is death really the answer? Should somebody who murdered and raped multiple victims really not have to suffer more than a few short seconds of their death? Dying doesn't mean they are punished and suffering for all eternity, it means they are dead. They are not suffering and feeling regretful, they have no thoughts or feelings. Why not make them actually get a real punishment that will make them regret what they did like being imprisoned for the rest of their life. If you believe they should die for religious reason like they deserve to be in hell, first of all, that is not Christian of you at all. Secondly, on the chance that God does not exist, would you not feel more relived knowing they are actually getting a punishment while being in jail? They will still die at one point, if they really did something truly awful, why not make them pay first?

  • We all have constitutional protections!

    Americans? So quick to condemn. Like those MENSA candidates who support capitol punishment for sex offenses. Wait until the defense attorneys get little Johnny or Susie on the stand and tear them a new one! And it has to be allowed in a proper defense. How about when your 17 year old son has a 14 year old girlfriend. Encourage him to dump her before he turns 18. If the relationship goes south, the girl and her parents will bring charges, and your son is now a "Dangerous Sex Offender" in the eyes of society. Oh, and let's not forget about Mommy wanting to take off with her new stud and wants a divorce, but Dad files for joint physical custody. Now Dad is an abusive bastard, and Mommy says she thinks he's been groping the daughter. Washington State offers a "Sex Offender Treatment Program" , and it is very successful. The recidivism rate is around 5%. Of those who go back to prison, it's usually for various drug charges, burglary, DUI, just to name a few non-sexual offenses. Here, the treatment program works. These people, when they get out, become tax paying, productive, and law abiding citizens. The media hypes these crimes up so bad that the public sheep become paralyzed with fear. You must always be diligent. Do you support your son, in my example, getting the death penalty? Also in Washington, after a period of post-prison supervision ends, which ranges between 12-36 months, ALL ex-felons get their voting rights restored. Now, if the sex offender kidnaps, rapes, and then MURDERS the victim, that's a totally different story. The only time I would apply the death penalty would be for high treason against the country. And even then...Maybe?

  • There are worse things than death...and they should be used instead.

    No I don't think there are any legit crimes you can sentence someone to death for aside from homicide and such. I personally think the death penalty is a crappy excuse for a punishment. 1. It makes whoever pulled the lever or pushed the button or whatever just as bad as the killer because they just murdered someone. 2. It gets the murderer off easily just a quick semi humane death when it would be much more painful to let them live with the guilt or keep them alive but make them suffer. But if we are going to use it we need to add rape, pedophilia and other sick crimes to that list.

  • I don't believe any crimes warrant the death penalty.

    No crime, not even homicide, should be punished by the death penalty or execution, because the people enforcing the laws, running the courts, and administering the death penalty are human and therefore fallible. There is always a chance of making a mistake and executing the wrong person. Since it is impossible to correct such a mistake, we should stick with prison sentences.

    Posted by: 5hinyRube
  • There is not any non-homicide crime that warrants the death penalty as such actions are cruel and unusual.

    The death penalty is often debated as being cruel and unusual punishment and is considered such by many nations. The use of the death penalty for non-homicide crimes goes beyond making the punishment fit the crime. It is impractical as well as immoral. Our criminal justice system would not support this type of punishment and our Constitution forbids it.

    Posted by: Cen2I0rd
  • The death penalty should be just retribution. Executing people in circumstances where there is no homicide is not just retribution, it is excessive.

    The point of the death penalty is to justly punish a person who has committed a crime. Using a penalty to excessively punish a person is not fair. I compare it to giving a minor drug offender a life sentence. It is not fair or just, it is excessive. Following the Biblical principle of just retribution is the key. A person deserves just retribution according to the command that a person should be required to give an eye for an eye.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • I don't think that any crime warrants the death penalty since incarceration of the offender can keep us safe.

    In this day and age, we are able to keep a person from re-offending. This means both that we don't need to execute anyone and that criminals can have an opportunity to reform their lives. There is a positive value in a person becoming a better person even if he or she has to live in prison for the rest of his or her life.

    Posted by: M4hm0Honda
  • I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances.

    I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. It is not warranted for any crime. I do not believe that it is the place of human beings to take the life of another and think that capital punishment is taking us back to ancient, barbaric beliefs of "an eye for an eye." It should not be used to punish any crimes.

    Posted by: NatBIab
  • I am against any capital punishment so that includes even the most horrific crime.

    I can certainly think of crimes just as horrific as murder - in particular, any offenses against innocent children which produce emotional scars that must be suffered and traumas that must be relived for the remainder of the victim's life. If I was the parent of such a victim, I would risk the wrath of God and State to tear the perpetrator limb from limb, but I would not want the State to endorse this.

    Posted by: Th4Fire

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