Is the death penalty fair for negligent crimes?

Asked by: Adam2
  • Yes, the death penalty is fair for negligent crimes.

    I believe that a negligent crime could still be worth the death penalty. Imagine if the father of a two year old boy gave him an assault rifle with a full clip of ammunition. That child then goes plays with his friends and shoots them all thinking it is a toy gun. The father should be put to death for negligent homicide.

  • No, it's not.

    To be fair, I don't support the principle of the death penalty -- so even in a case as bad as murder, I would support life in prison over a death sentence. But there is an important scenario to consider: negligence can lead to murder. In that case, are we prosecuting negligence or murder?

    I'd advise anyone interested to read Moral Luck by Thomas Nagel; he entertains the prospect of judging consequences over intent -- e.G., a man negligently fails to maintain control over his brake system while in his driveway. If there is no one who happens to walk behind his car, he simply say that he negligent, but not heinous. If a child walks behind his car and is killed as a result, we consider him a monster, and would want to prosecute him (some people may even suggest that he be executed).

    So, my bottom line is that the death penalty, ipso facto, is simply wrong. The caveat is likely that negligence, by and of itself, is not a death-penalty-worthy offense (even if I were to accept that there is one), though we should account for the fact that it gives way to vile crimes we may be more apt to condemn.

  • No it is not

    Killing is wrong whatever the reason is. If you kill someone because they committed a crime you are then as bad or even worse than them. Plus imagine being the person having to kill the criminal how would that affect them. The person would have to be extremely cold hearted for this not to negatively affect them. Also what if the criminal is wrongly convicted ? The will have then been killed for no reason. The death penalty is killing and killing is wrong.

  • Negligence doesn't deserve the penalty

    See crimes such as murdering someone in revenge or comitting a mob hit deserve the chair, but killing someone by being drunk under the influence is not right. Surely, one made a foolish mistake but they deserve a second chance. Drunk driving isn't the worst crime in the world and it can be cured.

  • No. I do not believe the death penalty fair for negligent crimes.

    No. I do not believe the death penalty fair for negligent crime, because I don't believe the death penalty is just in any situation. Killing is murder no matter what. If you kill someone what makes you better than the criminal tour sentencing to death. The death penalty should be abolished.

  • No, it is mostly too harsh for crimes of negligence

    Crimes of negligence include carelessness, inattention, ignorance, and sometimes recklessness, but these tend to have lower levels of culpable intent. The death penalty, when used is more appropriate for crimes involving the intent to harm or kill or a complete lack of remorse for actions that lead to mental and physical harm or deal. Negligent crimes generally do not fall into those categories.

  • Death Penalty Should Go

    I do not believe the death penalty is fair for negligent crimes. The only thing we currently use the death penalty for is murder and that is called in to question almost every time a scheduled killing comes about. I do not think the death penalty is fair in any case.

  • No negligence does not mean death

    If someone is found to be negligent they should not get the death penalty. The death penalty is for more serious offenses. Now if someone claims negligence but then is found to be more guilty then that the death penalty should be considered. It should be a matter of how the court finds.

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