If someone is guaranteed to be spending their life in a cell without chance of parole or appeal or escape, then there is theoretically no difference between the risk the criminal committing another crime with or without the death penalty. If the law changes, then parole or appeal may become a possibility for some crimes, but there are other crimes that are nigh on impossible to change (e.G. Laws against murder). However, escape remains a (very small) possibility. As such, going by expected rates of crime, having the death penalty should be the better choice (if only by a tiny fraction of a percentage point). The issue of causing "misery" would be resolved if they resorted to the simplest and most peaceful form of euthanasia - inert gas asphyxiation; the dead feel no misery. The issue of cost could be resolved by having very specific rules that determine when the death penalty applies without requiring (or allowing) the prosecution to specifically pursue the death penalty. Rather, the trial would progress naturally with the sentence being determined automatically according to specific criteria. In particular, the death penalty could be reserved for the very highest court of appeal such that legal expenses don't get inflated at all stages along the way.
It costs over $70k to house every prisoner in California. If we don’t kill them they will go on bail and commit more crimes. It also saves time and lives. It saves taxpayers and there will be less crimes. Once they get out of prison they will do it again ant they won’t learn. The world would be a better place without them in it.
There are many law-breakers today. The main thing they aren't afraid is being responsible before law. Crimers think that it's easy to spend some time in jail then get ut and kill again. I don't think that the idea of contuining the birth of such people is a good one, so the death penalty must be used in order to cut crimers' existence right at them. Another argument may be presented with the fact that the death penalty is a good way of showing others what hell they are going to encounte if they act in an illegal way.
If the person can do the crime and its a crime such as murder, rape, or any of the serious crimes that can get you the death penalty, then the deserve to get what they gave others. They could have caused heart break for many people, by taking their lives, or rapping them. You get what you deserve, even if that means death...
Death penalty does prevent a lot of crimes, you can realise that the murder index, for example, is way higher in countries where death penalty is not allowed, specially those with precarious education system. And yes, of course it costs less to execute somebody than imprison them for life, why should the government "pay a life" for a person that is disrespecting the principles of a country, which is its laws, and most important disrespecting all ethical standards? A state is very complex, rules have to be established and followed for a good progress, and if someone is threatening the society in general, it should be cut off. I'm talking about homicides, politics corruption, and all serious crimes that affects others, imo petty crimes like some drugs and small thefts shouldn't be treated the same way.
Yes, the death penalty should be given for serious crimes, because it is the ultimate retribution. When society is harmed in such a great way, it is natural to think that giving the death penalty is the way for society to make up for it. When it is the government acting, there is nothing wrong with wanting those who have killed others to pay with their lives.
It really should be up to the people at the state level to decide whether or not they want the death penalty in their state. One of the beliefs of the death penalty is that it might help keep people from committing violent crimes. Some people also believe that it is healing to the families impacted by violent crimes, but this is unknown. For states that have the death penalty, there is an appeals process that can be used. If the death penalty is kept, it's important to offer those who are convicted a chance to appeal their conviction.
Nobody deserves to die. Even if this person killed somebody, nobody deserves to die. They can be sentenced to jail for life if they killed somebody or abused somebody and/or something. Nobody deserves to die. The saying goes "Life is not fair." WE could make life more fair. They aren't going to kill another person if they are sentenced for life or even for 10 years. NOBODY deserves to die.
A person who has been given a death penalty and a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment are basically in the same position. Instead people who have got life imprisonment have to live in a constant dread of the inmates. A person is tortured physically and mentally in case of life imprisonment for a long time while a person with a death sentence lives for a short period with less torture.
Some heinous crimes and repeat offenders should be given life sentences. Serial rapists, drug traffickers and mobsters are just some of the examples of people who should be locked away for life and never see the light of day. The death penalty, if used at all, should only come into play for first degree murder cases.
The death penalty is a highly outdated and barbaric practice that no civilized country should use. The idea of punishment does not solve anything and it does not deter from crime, usually caused by some severe mental illness or disability. The people who commit serious crimes should be removed from society at worst and rehabilitated at best. Killing people doesn't bring anyone back.
When it comes to the death penalty, it really depends on just how serious the crime was. If someone gets life in prison do to drugs, then no, that shouldn't be an automatic death sentence. However, if someone is convicted of child molestation and murder, then yes, I say they deserve to be put to death.
According to Amnesty International, the murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty. The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.
The death penalty is not something I agree with a a fundamentally ethical level. Punishment serves a function when it prevents future crimes from occurring, and I'm not sure that the death penalty prevents enough crimes to merit being used (as compared to life in prison without parole). Punishment for the sake of "justice" has always seem rather convoluted to me, because there is really no justification for making somebody miserable just for the sake of it (from a Utilitarian stand point). Finally, it costs society MORE to execute somebody (in the United States) than to simply imprison them for life. Since it costs more, both economically and morally, to execute somebody, I conclude that it should not be used.