Amazon.com Widgets

Should capital punishment be used for crimes against humanity?

Asked by: Neurax
  • But that could lead to something even worse.

    In my opinion, we not only should have capital punishment for all of the U.S. but it should be televised. If we are allowed to see the death of people killed by someone such as the shooting of J.F.K. The attack on the Twin Towers, and even convenience store shootings, why not let people see the death of those who commit such crimes.
    The main problem with the death penalty is those that oppose it. If enough people on the jury oppose the death penalty, they could find the person not guilty so they are not put to death, even though they would agree that the person is guilty of the crime, they may not want their hands to be dirty in the death of the killer. If it results in a hung jury, it could also cost us even more money to retry the person maybe multiple times. Then there is also all the cost of having appeals and such that adds up to lots of extra money spent that could still end up to find a murder innocent.

  • With mercy, the end should be enforced,

    While I suggest we execute our criminals gently, swiftly, and privately, I think it is an important choice to make. The death penalty is simply a useful tool and helpful to the world. Why spend time trying to change a murderer, who has proved through malice or mens rea (motive), that they cannot function in a peaceful society? The argument that we are no better if we kill them is invalid, simply because we were provoked, and just, and did so calmly and gently. We are still the better party. The argument than, that killing is not an effective method of proving that murder is wrong, is also invalid, because though it may not be a direct statement, a murderer will think twice if it could be their own life on the line. Lastly, the argument that all life is sacred, while I stress that that is a matter of belief and experience, there are some circumstances with which I heavily disagree. There comes a point in someone's life, where they are old enough to make choices for themselves, and if those choices sway towards chaos and hateful actions, the chances of them changing are to slim to put stock in. Dangerous people have no place among us. Why should we step to save a life, that would step to end ours?

  • Crimes against humanity

    The use of capital punishment for crimes against humanity seems good. If it is inhumane to use the death penalty, than crimes against humanity should get an eye for an eye.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  • Criminal behaviour should never be allowed to serve as a standard for crime punishment

    It is the mark of an enlightened civilisation to refuse to cross the same lines as criminals routinely do. Interestingly this has been understood about judicial torture and judicial amputation of limbs, which only backwards, oppressive, and barbaric regimes still condone. Oddly enough, the ultimate torture and destruction of the whole body, no matter how much more severe and egregious than torture or amputation, still gets rationalised based on the same types of abusive and false arguments that would serve to defend arbitrary and authoritarian dictatorships. This shows that the death penalty does not belong in a healthy, fully democratic society. Society should never model its actions after those of the systems and behaviours it openly purports to reject.

  • No. It is wrong.

    If one is executed for murder, and we kill him, we basically did exactly what he did, except we don't get punished. Also, wrongful executions have taken place, so what if one happens? It is overall wrong. Also, I think that life is sacred, and that it should be protected.

  • It's just an extreme act of vengeance.

    Making an example out of criminal won't affect those who commit crimes against humanity. Those who orchestrate these acts are impulsive psychopaths, not exactly people who will be swayed by conscious consideration of the consequences of their actions. Even the average Joe who becomes susceptible to these banal evils does so out of impulsiveness and non-conscious influences like groupthink.

    Capital punishment boils down to premeditated murder as an act of revenge. All this does is feed the hysteria, the sensationalism, and often times the ethnic/religious nationalism in that situation. Look at Iraq, with Saddam and countless other government workers being executed in ways to purposely make it as painful as possible, with many sadistically savoring the vengeance. This definitely fed Shi'a nationalism which arguably led to the later attempts at genocide from Shi'a militias and al-Maliki's election, leading to brutal anti-Sunni policies. By all means war criminals deserve to be publicly humiliated and don't deserve to live, but it's much more complicated than it seems at first glance.

  • Sacredness of life?

    If life is so special, then why would you teach a lesson by taking a life? Oh, you killed someone, so because life is so precious to us, we're going to take one more life away on top of the life already lost. Not only that, it's not a punishment if someone is willing to die, and a lot of people who are willing to kill are willing. And sometimes hoping, to die.


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