Amazon.com Widgets

Should life imprisonment be replaced by capital punishment?

  • It is logical for life imprisonment to be replaced by capital punishment.

    In order to justify imprisoning someone for life, the state must be able to justify excluding a citizen from society and the right to self determination. As such, by depriving someone of freedom for life, they are depriving them of everything except for the act of living. Instead of wasting time, wasting resources and living (prison) space, taxpayers money, etc, just gas them, bury them and move on.

  • Yes, states spend too much tax money on prisoners who will die in prison.

    In California it costs an average of $47,000 a year to maintain one prisoner. The bulk of that cost is for security and then health care. Tax payers should not have to support prisoners who are sentenced to life in prison. Capital punishment is not as costly. This sounds cold, but the prisoner is in prison for murder or another inhuman act against another. The victim does not get $47,000 a year from the state, nor does their family. Capital punishment for violent criminals is fair punishment.

  • Discriminatory and cruel

    It is discriminatory. In the US, people of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white. And We don't accept such barbaric and brutal practice. Like slavery, the capital punishment has no place in a civilized society. And capital punishment can't be corrected of repaired because no one can make the dead innocent victim alive back when they know they have made mistake. By making revenge possible, the death penalty encourages victims, their families, and society to react violence violently there by making the nation every more disordered.

  • No, there is no benefit.

    Capital cases cost taxpayers far more than cases that do not consider the death penalty. The jury selection takes longer. The trial takes longer. There is a separate sentencing phase. Also, defendants in capital cases are likely to be indigent, so taxpayers are paying for their defense as well. If we eliminate the death penalty and have the maximum sentence be life without parole then, even with tax dollars paying for imprisonment, there is less tax money being spent overall. Also, it has been demonstrated that the death penalty does not have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment so it really isn't helping things on that level either.

  • There is no benefit to society.

    Do we really need to be killing more people as a society? The death penalty has already shown that the state is incapable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed 100% of the time. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the death penalty produces any practical benefit to society. I say abolish it!

  • No that would be wrong

    No, we do not have the right to play God's and we do not have enough insight to understand all cases in particular complex ones. There is always the issue with wrongful or biased convictions and mental illness whether biologically or psychological. Criminals sentenced to this level of punishment may have committed crimes as they could be cold blooded or psychopaths, copycat bullies, inherently bad or simply distorted thinking products of their enviroments that we may have the luck of never walking or experiencing.

  • Never take a life!

    I think that taking a life is never the way to solve a problem! Life is something so important that it can not be taken away in a few mistakes. The criminals should have psychiatrists and counselors talking to them and helping them reform as they pay for their crimes by doing their time. Reforming criminals is a hard job, but never impossible.


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