• It doesn't make sense.

    It is a barbaric way to deal with murder. Morally what makes us better if we kill those who kill? It hypocritical. Plus it is an easy way out for the criminals. It would rather have then suffer in jail for the rest of their life without parole. Usually murders don't fear death so this type of punishment is not a deterrent. Not only that but the injection method is one of the most painful ways to do it, it just collapses your lungs before anybody has a chance to yell in pain. Plus the injection chemicals are becoming more and more rare, thus making it more expensive with each injection. In fact it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life without parole than it is to kill them. It doesn't make sense to spend more money on a morally questionable act that has shown no signs of determent.

  • To easy for the criminals.

    They should make them suffer just as much if not more than the person they attacked or attempted to attack. Then let them rot in jail. No second chances, no do-overs. They criminals made the decision to attack that person. Whether innocent or guilty, that's up to the law to decide. Not the common man. We can just make our opinions.

  • To kill a killer for killing is the dumbest thing ever.

    We don't have it in Europe and the EU try to promote it to the rest of the world for a good reason. It's cruel and dramatic. Turning it around and saying that cruel people deserve it is just hypocritical. If we kill killers we're just as bad. Secondly, the government shouldn't have the right over people's lives. It's too much power.

  • Eighth Amendment and the constitution

    The Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights clearly states Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Some may say the death penalty is justice but it is actually just revenge to the murderer. If killing people isn't a "cruel and unusual punishment", what is?

  • The Bible doesn't allow people to be killed

    When we read through the Bible, killing people is a sin. In Old Testament times, it is mentioned that any one who commits adultery should be stoned to death. I am a christian and i disagree with death penalty. I see so many people have been killed wrongly. The real criminal is not killed though.

  • Death penalty is a human rights violation.

    With the death penalty, you are deliberately deciding punishment by death for a criminal. This is the same concept as eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. It violates human rights by the government forcing the death of a human. Death by capital punishment is not justice meaning not giving them what's rightfully theirs. I fully support imprisonment instead. God says that we shall not decide the length of another human's life according to the 10 Commandments. In conclusion, the death penalty is killing.

  • It's barbaric, overexpensive and innocents often die

    If you trade an eye for an eye the whole world will be blind - literally, what gives the justice system the right to take a human life? Thousands of people in the history of the US have been exonerated after death. I say that for one innocent to have to die is one too many. The death sentence is incredibly expensive and a waste of information on killers and how they operate as well. Advocates of the death sentence seem to tend to appeal to the emotions but at the end of the day this biblical type of revenge that seems so popular is never satisfying, it's just another death among thousands.

  • I think it should.

    It should only really be used for crimes such as 9/11 and people like Bin Laden or the Yorkshire Ripper.
    But otherwise it should not be brought back and it should be banned in America for an indefinite time.
    Police should use guns if needed, if they were dealing with a gun crime. Or in other words, I think that we should get rid of them altogether.

  • Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

    Death penalty should be abolished. Every year, thousands of people are put on death row for a crime they didn't even commit. There's no way of knowing if they actually did or not. Is it worth the risk? It can be seen as a cruel and unsual punishment, which goes against one of our amendments in the Constitution. Crime will always be apart of the world and there will be better ways to handle it.

  • It is cruel and unusual punishment.

    We can't justify killing someone if we are punctuating it by saying killing is wrong. From a young age we teach our children that two wrongs don't make a right, yet the death penalty is trying to do exactly that. Costs are also prohibitive. It costs more to have someone go through the death penalty process than to keep him in jail for the rest of his life.

    Posted by: Wmdu
  • No it should not

    Death penalty is not a cruel punishment and it's certainly not unusual. The death penalty is only a cruel punishment if it is too harsh a punishment for the crime. 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. It should be used to eradicate criminals who cannot be good members of society and we should not have to pay for them to stay in jail where they will only cause more problems.

  • No. It would make no sense.

    Murderers deserve to die for murdering. An eye for an eye. The only way I would support abolishing the death penalty is if instead we lock murderers up in a dungeon like cage and let them rot for the rest of their lives in absolute misery. Murderers need to pay for murdering. I think a person should be killed in the exact same way that he murdered.

  • Killers should be killed.

    Anyone can escape from prison. Anyone. Justice for the victims and kill the killers. Society needs protection from these barbarians. Life Without Parole or LWOP is not a justification and a replacement for the death penalty. It costs more for life in a prison than 10 years and a lethal injection. Say no to the liberal left do-gooders.

  • stop being hypocrites

    People say that the death penalty is cruel and unfair to take away another person's life. It is "inhumane." So it is inhuman to take away one's life - yet it is ok to let them suffer much more painfully for a long time rotting in jail? Isn't that inhumane?

  • This Isn't About What You Think

    Many of those Against the Death Penalty state that it doesn't Deter crime...that is, having the death penalty in a state doesn't lower the crime rate. I maintain, the Death Penalty isn't about Deterring' is preventing 1 criminal from repeating the Same Crime while saving society the Fear and Anxiety of wondering if that criminal will ever be paroled. For example, Mason. How much money have we spent keeping this 1 criminal incarcerated for how long? Can anyone estimate? Each year he's denied parole. But what if next year some parole panel decides enough is enough, let him go and try to reintegrate into society. Do you want Manson moving next door to you and your family, your children, your teenage daughter? If you say that's OK with you, that Manson moves into your apartment complex next door to YOUR 15-20 year old daughter, then I say, Go for it, give the man Parole. But if you say "NO", like any Sane human being, then explain to me how not executing him has, in any way, helped our society. Explain to me how it's helped Him, for that matter. Keeping him alive has neither enriched our society as a people, nor has it helped the Man himself in anyway. He contributes Nothing to Society. He gains nothing by continued existence. Is it not cruel and unusual torture to keep a man locked up for decades with no Hope at all of redemption, parole or salvation? And if you won't let him go, what do you gain by keeping him alive? If he is dead, he is no longer suffering, and society is relieved of the anxiety and Fear of him committing the same crime again.

  • Punishment for crime involving death

    If a criminal suspect takes a human beings precious life, he should be punished for it. If we did not have the death penalty in our goverment, there would be a major increase in the rate of crimes per year. The only way to stop criminals from doing these terrible crimes is to show them the side affects for doing them.

  • We should keep it

    Beyond a reasonable doubt is the words a jury has to swear by so we shouldn't ban it because some people cant tell a guilty person from an innocent one. We just need to have evidence that points no other way. Its not like we execute people who shop lift we execute people who rape and murder, and commit unthinkable crimes that are a Danger to society, I will pay to be sure my family and I are safe.

  • The death penalty has its uses.

    Consider mass-murderers, serial rapists and other criminals. These criminals are often punished with life-sentences or stays at psychiatric wards (which are infamous for almost never releasing 'patients'). How is the death penalty crueler than the thought of living in a cell for the remainder of your life? The death penalty, when used in conjunction with rehabilitation and other methods of dealing with criminals, can be an effective deterrent, and can also bring peace to victims' families. The death penalty holds an important role in the criminal justice system.

  • Killing someone that killed the victim isn’t Justice

    We can’t just kill someone that murdered someone because that ain’t right, that’s only a eye for a eye and what happens if the person was then executed and later on found innocent.
    A father named Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of setting a fire killing all three of his daughters, he was executed on the 17th of February 2004, later on he found innocent.
    That’s proof right there

  • "Didn't know what he was doing."

    To argue my point, I'm going to eleborate on an example.
    In 2008 a man by the name of Vince Lee was on a greyhound bus in Canada, had a psychotic episode, took out a knife and decapitated the man next to him, a man by the name of Tim Maclean. Yes; decapitated. He took the guys head off, and if that wasn't enough he started eating parts of the man, and when police arrived, he tauntingly held up the head to the bus window.
    This man was found, ''not criminally responsible'' by the justice system, who said he was schizophrenic and ''not aware of what he was doing was wrong'', and he was locked in a mental institution.
    In 2012, only four years later, he is now permitted to go on ''short, supervised outings'' into the community.

    I have always been on the fence about the death penalty, as there are many cases where you cannot be entirely sure; there are no witnesses but the evidence points to it possibly being this one person guilty of murder, or it was sort of an accident, or it's kind of justifiable even though it's still illegal. SO they go to jail for the rest of their lives and I'm fine with that.
    However, when you have a bus-full of witnesses, when you have a man who's so insane that he didn't realise taking a guys head off and eating parts of him was wrong, why wouldn't you just put the man down? We do it with dogs all the time, like when a dog thinks a kids face would make a good meal, and proceeds to eat it.
    For some reason we have decided that human lives are worth more even when that human is a sick, twisted, warped shadow of one. Why? Why is a man who snapped and was ''mentally ill and didn't know what he was doing'' worth more than a dog who "didn;t know what he was doing"

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PreferNotToBeLabeled says2014-05-04T06:53:23.060
Some people just don't deserve and are to dangerous to be kept alive.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.