They deserve to suffer for what they did. Justice should be served. Turning the other cheek makes the other side bloody as well. An eye for an eye. Need I continue? These people are monsters not humans and we have to show the public that actions have consequences to deter criminals from repeating their actions.
If people commit murder (etc) Think of the victim, dying agony. The murderer should suffer in pain for his/her crimes as well , shouldn't they? I don't have an opinion for arsonists, or robbers. Anything that results in death whether my robbery gone wrong or an arsonists fire killing someone.
Whoever commited the crime , deserves to feel the pain of their innocent victim.
Here's why that person made someone suffer in some unfair or psycho way. So now the family should decide which way they die then ask how long would they want it to last only then we would move on from this scum calling themselves human even though they are dirt to society (they worse than that) not a weak little needle to make problems go away and them scot free laughing how an easy death they got. People sometimes laugh at the survivors saying how they enjoyed their suffering and junk. Now my opinion in that should be no more painless death (keep in mind only if they are absolutely guilty and family wants it to happen)
Certain crimes deserve the criminal to feel pain. We are talking about those who tortured their victim before killing them, although there are more those types of crimes than those where a swift painless death could be accepted. Death is a relief, but dying itself shouldn't be painless for the wicked. Someone who shows no regard for human life should feel dread all the way to the point of the actual death.
I'm going to put this very bluntly. Life in prison is, at least in my mind, more painful than dying. However, you're also dead once you die. Seems obvious, but there you go. If you want a person to suffer, you keep them alive. If you want them dead, then you either do it yourself (and go to prison) or let the state do what it does, which legally mandates that it not be cruel or unusual; I hate to have to point this out, but an intentionally painful death, where a more efficient, less painful alternative exists, is 'cruel', and seems pretty unusual (waste of taxpayer money just to hurt someone for 40 seconds before they're dead, for one) to me.
The law prevents cruel and unusual punishments and a painful death penalty is a cruel punishment.
If we were to use painful death penalties it would be stooping to the same level as the criminal, which would make us just as guilty as the criminal.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
No, they should not die a painful death, but rather a painless death. It' bad enough to be deprived of your life, but even worse when you realize the last moments of it shall be spent in excruciating pain. We don't allow torcher anyways, so it would be very ridiculous.