• It is moral!

    Murderers, kidnappers, domestic terrorists, and people who commit treason should be kept away from the public. And what's the best way to do that? Place them in a chair, strap them in and inject them with a poison strong enough to kill them. That's how. We protect the children of America, our young adults and our senior citizens. The death penalty helps us. It treats the defendant like a free moral actor capable of dictating his future for good of for ill so, yes. I think the death penalty is very moral.

  • It probably isn't.

    The Bible tells us that we should not kill. That is probably one of the few rules in the Bible that general society actually seems to support. Killing is wrong which means giving someone the death penalty is also wrong. With that being said, people on death row are not exactly innocent. Sometimes exceptions to the rules need to be made. Whether it is moral or not, I support the death penalty.

  • Incompetence to carry out the penalty is a different matter from moral validity of the penalty

    A legal death penalty should not be carried out if it can't be done competently, supposing that incompetence would be cruel and unusual punishment. But that's a different matter from the death penalty itself. If the death penalty is regarded as moral, but it can't be competently carried out, then the penalty should be suspended until it can be carried out competently. If the death penalty can't be judiciously determined, then it shouldn't be applied; but that's a different matter from the moral status of the penalty itself. The justice of due process is a different matter from the morality of the option. If due process can't be ensured, the penalty shouldn't be accepted. But procedural justice is a different matter from morality of the option; competence to carry out the penalty humanely is a different matter from the morality of the option. The death penalty by state process is an act of state, and the people have the right to institute the laws that they regard as valid. If the best arguments for and against the death penalty cause the majority of people to regard it as moral, thus approving legislation making it legal, then the state thereby gains the legitimacy to make the death penalty an option. Whether or not any person should regard the death penalty as moral depends, of course, as what "being moral" is. I'm a professional philosopher. In my view, the death penalty is moral, but a philosophical basis for a moral view is a very complicated matter. I take a Habermasian stance on the nature of valid law, but disagree with him on the basis of moral validity. I find Cass Sunstein's recent point interesting that the death penalty is moral because the moral status of state acts should be regarded as not embodying a distinction between acts and omissions, re: the research-based 1:10 deterrent effect of the death penalty. See SUNSTEIN & VERMEULE 58 STAN. L. REV.703 (2006)

  • The Death Penalty Is Moral Even If It Kills An Innocent Person Once In A While.

    Capital punishment is warranted in some cases of crime. It is moral because ending the criminal's life can close the tremendous pain felt by the victim's surviving relatives. Morality must take into consideration the pain of those who live. It is unjust for a person who has committed egregious crimes against civilization to continue living in relative comfort while the victims' relatives live with injustice. Justice must prevail. It is thus moral to kill a prison who is on death row because it can bring closure to victims' family and loved ones. Plus, execution does not hurt the prisoner. It just puts him to sleep forever also saving the prisoner from painful remorse on his conscience.

  • No, the death penalty is not moral.

    No, I don't believe the death penalty is moral. Practically the only crime that's punishment is the death penalty is a crime of murder. When looking at that fact, people need to realize that punishing a murderer by murdering him is one of the most hypocritical things that the government can do. By having the death penalty, the government is standing behind the fact that "an eye for an eye" is a good policy to keep. What happens when the government starts practicing that policy in everyday actions? It is a slippery slope, and the death penalty steepens that slope.

  • It's Not Moral At All

    The death penalty is not moral. As a matter if fact, it is about as far from moral as one could be. You cannot justify Killing another individual under any circumstance. Anyone doing this or supporting the death penalty is a horrible person. We need to get rid of it in this country.

  • No, killing someone else is never moral.

    The death penalty is completely immoral. Ending another person's life is always wrong, no matter what they may have done to you, or to society. We have no right to kill, ever. If the criminal is too dangerous to be set free, then life in prison is the only moral thing to do.

  • The Flaws of the Death Penalty

    Of the many flaws of the death penalty, the premise in of itself presents this point strongest. We kill people for killing people, because killing people is wrong. Now many people make the claim that there is a difference between killing and murder. The line is subjective and always drawn by governments. Is an executioner executing a murderer murder? No, because the government said so. Is a soldier killing enemy soldiers illegal? No, because the government said so. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but at what point does killing become murder?

    The second point I would like to make is but a counter to poor arguments from the opposition. One who makes the point to of attempting to get one to feel empathy for victims has committed the appeal to emotion. Our attempts are to go about this as a logical question, not one of emotion and vengeance.

    Next, I would like to point out but the most definitive and unarguable point. The death penalty exceeds the costs of a life sentence in prison making, out of convenience, execution irrational.

    Fourthly, I will put forth the free will argument. Our actions are determined by our genetics and our environment, two factors in which one cannot control. Environment can change and, if properly rehabilitated, allow for even the worst of criminals to become upright citizens. Do not punish the unlucky among us.

    Lastly, too many innocents are killed. If an executioner murders a convicted felon who is later proven to have been innocent, then is the executioner their self guilty of manslaughter. Can one ever gain closure if they are unsure of if there loss had resulted in the death of an innocent?

    To conclude, the death penalty is most certainly illogical. Execution is morally flawed, vengeance and not justice, costly, punishment of the unfortunate, and responsible for the death of many innocents.

  • It can kill innocent people.

    I do not see any way that the death penalty, with the way it is currently carried out, can be considered moral. There have been prisoners released from death row when they were found to be factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. How many innocent people had a death sentence carried out before the right evidence was brought to life? Anything that kills innocent people, or has the potential to do so, cannot be considered moral.

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