Currently, the appeals process is so drawn out it takes 20 years to execute someone and 10's of millions in legal expenses that are on the American tax payer. To hell with that. If we have absolute evidence, such as the previously mentioned decapitation; the sentence should be swift and the execution carried out shortly thereafter by firing squad. There's no reason to spend 80 grand on chemicals for a lethal injection when a bullet costs 50 cents. Feel free to call that inhumane, but its a more clean death than what they probably did to earn that.
For my example for this, I'm going to use a real life case in which the death penalty should've been used but, here in Canada, we don't have one. Vince Lee. This psycho was on a bus and suddenly snapped, pulled out a buck knife, DECAPITATED THE PASSENGER NEXT TO HIM, ATE SOME OF HIM, and then taunted the cops with the head when they arrived.
He was declared criminally insane, and unaware what he was doing was wrong. He WAS sentenced time in an mental health institute, but has recently been given access for visits outside of his hospital.
How it should've gone down, is that we saw a guy too mentally unstable to notice decapitation and cannibalism are bad, and put him down. Sorry to sound harsh, but in cases like these where there's a bus-load of witnesses & security footage of him doing such a horrendous thing, there's no real excuse for letting him be alive.
Here are some of the most common arguments against the death penalty.
1. We might kill someone who's innocent.
2. It's not a deterrent.
3. It's gods choice who lives and who dies.
For #1, yes I agree with this. If it's a flimsy case, and we think the person is guilty but they might be innocent, yeah don't give him the death penalty. But if there's dozens of witnesses, some of whom are cops, as well as security footage- yeah there's no real argument for how they might be innocent.
For #2- It doesn't matter if it's not a deterrent. It's deter that person from killing people again. If you ask me, one less psychotic murderer is good enough.
For #3, well even if ol' spaceman spiff is really up there, I doubt he gives the slightest f*** who lives and who dies. If (according to your relgion) he created all life, then human lives don't mean any more than a dang praying mantis.
All criminals are bad and could be changed, but what about those that have commit some of the worst, inhumane things? Like mass murder? Or cutting off heads, and stuff like that? If people want to act like an animal, they must be treated like an animal. They have chosen to go down a bad path in life, then they should pay for it. Of course, it should be a last resort, but if any inhumane crimes come up, then it should definitely be legal.
The death penalty will decrease the rising number of prisoners and stop the world from over populating because China are popping out more and more by the second which are then coming to our country. Rapists and murderers are sick and twisted imbecils. PEOPLE CAN JUST GO AWAY.
If someone receives the death penalty, it's usually because they're a serial killer or a terrorist or someone who isn't beneficial to society anyways. If the death penalty became illegal, this person would have to just sit in prison for the rest of their life. Not contributing to society in any way at all. The average cost for an inmate in moderate security to be in jail for a year is $31,000. This is moderate security. The people who we're talking about would be in max. Which would be about $65,000. Think about that much money, every year, for the rest of this individuals life. Which if the person is young, could add up to millions. Why would we spend these tax-payer dollars on a criminal? On top of this, killing off those who do wrong would deter future criminals from venturing down that road. In Singapore, if you steal, they cut your hand off. If you bring drugs into the country, you're beaten and eventually killed if repeated. Singapore has almost 5 times less crime than the US. Harsher punishments deter this kind of behavior.
XzxftzftfyiT ftfXTX ZTXFtXF ATX TA TXa t X z xzyfXTzfxz tyXFZTX ZTFXz XzXFt XzX zIXTF zfx XzXtzxf zxfztxz Xzfxtz xzTX zxz xzxfz zx zz xzx zxz xz xzx zxz x zxzftxyzx zxz xzxz xzxzxzx zx zxz xzxzXzX XZ XZX xz xzx zxzx zxz xzxzxztyXfz xzx zXFztyxfizTX zX ztIX Fz FXtzXFz
Firstly, like a previous opinion stated, rapists and murderers have mental conditions that can rarely be cured. Dr. Steven Dubovsky, who chairs the department of psychiatry at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, stated "[t]he main issue is that at least 83.4% of homicides are results of mental instability..." If a man who takes pleasure in taking away a human life, the same should be done to him. Secondly, it depends on the humanity of the act. If a man shoots and kills a man in first degree murder, I doubt he would get the death penalty. If the same man mutilates, rapes, tortures, and murders innocent children, then he is going to most likely die if proven guilty.
I recently read another argument on this site and agree with them. What they stated was, "Should vandalism be execution worthy? No. That's unnecessary. Should Mass murderers and rapists who are insane and cannot contribute positively to society and threaten other people be executed? Absolutely." When people cannot contribute to society, that doesn't mean they should be killed, but whan they kill annot contribute to society, then they should be killed.
The death penalty is totally hypocritical. It is saying murder is wrong so I will murder you. It puts society at the same level as the criminal.
It is more expensive to the state to give someone the death penalty that keep them in jail for life so it is a burden on society.
It is saying two wrongs make a right.
It is playing. God.
@Babyslayer In my opinion we live in a society which 'tries' to uphold the moral position that all lives are equal, taking that statement as our axiom we can see that taking a life, no matter what the circumstances are equal.
Now choosing as a society to murder some one for the act of murder makes us as much murderers as the man in your example, so in a society where we murder for murder where do we choose to end it? Arbitrarily ending the loop presumes that the last murder is some how superior to the rest and breaks our axiom that all people are equal? Simply put the death penalty cannot exist in a society that believes in basic equality.
There are times when the wrongly accused are found guilty and become sentenced, which is a flaw in our Justice System. If we add the Death Penalty, the wrongly accused could get the death penalty. Also, killing the person won't bring the victim back, nor will it benefit anyone. It shows were uncivilized.
Most men perform crime to draw attention to themselves and possibly attract a mate. They would rather die and take their genes to the grave than live a life knowing they won't mate.
That's why death penalty is ineffective, and it's also why saying that smoking causes impotence is more effective for quitting than saying it causes cancer.
Death is actually a fairly easy punishment, since it's quick and the criminal wants to die anyway. It isn't really effective.
Castration, in addition to a life sentence, makes more sense. Preferably using a hammer!
Speeking about the capital punishment I am not sure, whether it is really solution. The Deth penalty is not able to return life of the victim. In addition to that, capital punishment is not prevent murders from happening. Next, the most modern and developed countries have abolished it and more and more governments are considering to cancel it. Therefore, I understand the deth penalty as a symbol of barbarism. It is not a solution. Everything is about moral maturity and integrity. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Therefore, we should try to find other solutions, any kind of prevention. I can imagine only one advantage of the capital punishment and so, it is very important matter for the members of the family of the victim, because it could be vital satisfaction for them.
The point in which I've always thought it would be justifiable to execute someone is very singular.
I've always held that if someone was undoubtedly a destructive force, (a threat to our society or way of life in a very lethal sense), and there's evidence to show that they will not stop despite any attempts at recuperating them for society, then the cheapest and most humane removal of this catalyst is the most appropriate approach.
This may sound cold, but execution can never be about punishment or "revenge". The deed that has been committed is done, and the damage cannot be reversed, only prevented from happening again.
Death is no punishment, and doesn't make sense as a definition. There can be no lessons learned if you're completely removed from the equation.
And the idea of vengeance will move us no closer towards a reasonable solution to STOP violence, only more violence.
Of course, this is a concept that requires a perfect justice system with clear-cut cases and the evidential requirements must be of the highest bar. These things simply don't exist in reality, thus I could never reasonably agree with a death penalty in all but the most heinous and unique cases, of which are incredibly rare.
I just can't come up with a solid reason to support it. The death penalty doesn't deter crime of any sort, it costs more to implement by far than life imprisonment, it's government sanctioned killing in the name of retributive (if not vengeful) justice, it takes the lives of some people who are thereafter exonerated by additional evidence, it's used as a method to end the lives of people who suffer borderline retardation, it preys on the poor and disenfranchised, and all of the ways it is implemented could (or easily do) constitute cruel and unusual punishment.