Should murderers be killed the same way that they killed their victims?

Asked by: ehellyer
  • Kindof like this

    I think if someone murders 1 person by gunshot to the head, then that person should die by gunshot to the head and so on.

    If someone murders 2 or more people by the same method, then they should die by a method twice as painful as by gun to the head because they killed 2 people to earn that.

    There is the fear of killing an innocent person. However, there is only a 4.1% chance that that happens and this rate is going down with better investigation tequnicks. If the odds were more than 10% then I would be against it (probably) but since the odds are so low, I would support it for overall justice.

    The bible also says that those executed falsely will go to heaven, so it works out well for those that are "unlucky". Since there are no atheists in foxholes, it would mean the atheist innocent convicts would tend to convert out of fear and then go to heaven when they are executed innocently.

    Posted by: asta
  • I'm leaning more toward yes.

    This is because it strikes fear into those who even think about wanting to commit a major crime. There obviously will be exceptions, like there are to many things in the law. My mindset is where I see this as an advantage to our justice system. If we put this law into place, it would tremendously bring down crime. So criminals would have to really think that if they were to commit a crime then they would have to choose wisely on this decision before it gets them killed. I know many will not see it the way I do, but think of all the good things that will come out of this rather than having that mind block-- whether it means that it will be torture, we'd be the criminal, it's wrong etc.. Think of the advantages we'd have against criminals. If we want to lower death rates by murder or criminal act, then we have to enforce a strong and standing law. Yes, we could kill criminals with lethal injections--much like we do today-- but as people may or may not know, we are going to begin to run out of it. We could have other countries aid us with it, but it still doesn't change the fact that we will eventually run out. So how would we kill people for their punishment?

  • It means that murderers will have more fear of doing a certain crime

    It means that murderers will have more fear of doing a certain crime

    in the past there were not many thiefs simply because of fear of losing a hand. Fear is the most powerful tool we can use to make people stop killing each other. And do not say we need to ban guns here in Holland guns are opretty much banned and people still die

  • Ridiculous idea, obviously wrong!

    This is no better than torture! Torture has now been outlawed in the U.S, and for good reason. That kind of 'an eye for an eye' mentality debases us to little better than the criminals we are punishing. How cane we condemn them for their actions when we do the same thing to them?

  • Increases Crime Rates

    The more brutal we respond to violence, the more violence we will have in our society. When you normalize brutality as a legal societal recourse to crime, you are telling society that in some conditions, these behaviors are acceptable. For the criminally predisposed amongst us (psychopaths, sociopaths, etc..) they will see this as validation of their actions as legitimate.

  • It's worse a second time!

    Of course, if someone is deemed guilty in court, he/she can be put to death, but to give someone the job of smashing their heads with bricks, dropping them out windows, stabbing them, etc. the executioner gets paid to do the things that others get killed for! Just think, you'd be hiring serial killers and paying them to break the law!

  • I believe that murders should not be killed the same way that they killed their victims .

    I believe that murders should not be killed the same way that they killed their victims , because everyone deserves a chance and has the right to life. Ending someones life because of a bad decision is a bad part for humanity's sake. How could this even be sane, the are doing the same act the murderer did and in some cases it may even be for the same reason such as the murderer killing someone because they killed one of their family members. Was that a right decision, of course not, but you killing them is equally the same as them killing their victim. However, it would be legal. Also, if the murder was an accident than they will be killed over a mistake. Clearly, I believe murderers should not be killed the same way that they killed their victims.

  • Not at all.

    I think murderers should be killed in a worse manner. Set them on fire, drown them, break some limbs, give them radiation poisoning, shove glass through random orifices, don't let them sleep, starve them. It doesn't matter. Make a show out of it and broadcast it. People need to know that killing is wrong and there are consequences.

  • Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Honestly, the death penalty in its entirety is completely stupid, if you ask me. If you respond to violence with more violence, it just shows the world that violence solves everything, which it doesn't. Moreover, simple jail time gives the offender plenty of time to think about their actions. We have reform programmes for some, why can't we get more people back on track, rather than six feet under?

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