Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason I am against the death penalty is because of cost - prosecution, housing, and appeals cost too much. It's also not a deterrent to crime.
I am totally against the death penalty for a few reasons:
1. Society says that it's against the law and immoral for a human to kill another human, so why is it legal for the government to kill a human as a punishment?
2. The penalty is less about punishing the criminal and more about the family members wanting to get revenge, hence the reason why there is a viewing room.
3. What happens if the wrong person is arrested and found guilty? It happens ALL THE TIME where people were imprisoned for over a decade for a crime they didn't commit.
4. Officials try to soften the concept of killing someone by performing a medical procedure with different types of medication.
1. Actually, killing in defense of person or property is LEGAL and MORAL.
2. The penalty imposed by (impartial) government was to avoid vendettas and blood feuds, which were far more bloody.
3. Execution of an innocent man is a travesty. In the past, to convict a murderer required testimony from TWO witnesses. Circumstantial evidence was not enough. And if it was learned that the executed was innocent, the two witnesses who perjured themselves would be subject to the same punishment. (Hence the saying, "You lie, you die.")
4. "Humane" executions are for the benefit of the audience, not the condemned. Probably the fastest and sure method of execution is the guillotine.
. . .
. . .
In a nation that has a limited government with little resources, the only viable options for the convicted are (a) exile or (b) execution.
Prison is basically a form of exile, and can be expensive.
A speedy execution is a far cheaper option.
In theory I have no problem with the death penalty for certain crimes but in practice I don't trust the government to handle the responsibility in a competent manner. They can't even get the lethal injection right. I think almost any home chemist could find a way to lethally overdose someone in a more efficient manner than the government has managed to do so far.
I am totally against the death penalty for a few reasons:
1. Society says that it's against the law and immoral for a human to kill another human, so why is it legal for the government to kill a human as a punishment?
2. The penalty is less about punishing the criminal and more about the family members wanting to get revenge, hence the reason why there is a viewing room.
3. What happens if the wrong person is arrested and found guilty? It happens ALL THE TIME where people were imprisoned for over a decade for a crime they didn't commit.
4. Officials try to soften the concept of killing someone by performing a medical procedure with different types of medication.
1. The death penalty is legal because the people ultimately make the law through elected representatives. It is not legal and is immoral for a human being to kill an innocent person. The murderer is effectively giving an innocent person the death penalty at a random point in time.
2. It can be about both depending on the victim's family. What's wrong with that? The murderer just implemented the death penalty on an innocent person. Why is it a big deal if the family wants revenge? They just lost a member of their family.
3. I think it should always be used in obvious cases like a mass murder situation. I think that links the crime and the penalty in the minds of other possible murderers in society. If the details are murky, I am OK with no death penalty.
4. Doesn't matter. To me, it's ensuring the person does not kill anyone else.
It has to be for a crime so horrible and heinous that goes beyond any form of being a human especially if it concerns children for me to be comfortable with it. I don’t fine joy when someone is executed.
There is one thing I consider. If the death penalty is suppose to be a deterrent, it isn't really working in alot of cases. Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, those states have the death penalty. Those states are tough on crime. It doesn't seem to be as much of a deterrent in those states as it should be. The states I mentioned have some of the highest murder rates in the USA. The Lowest: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine. Three of the four are gun friendly states. New Hampshire and Maine's murder rates (per capita) are lower than Canada's (Canada's murder rate is 1.95 per 100,000. NH is 0.9 per 100,000, VT is 1.6 per 100,000). No death penalty in those states.
I am totally against the death penalty for a few reasons:
1. Society says that it's against the law and immoral for a human to kill another human, so why is it legal for the government to kill a human as a punishment?
2. The penalty is less about punishing the criminal and more about the family members wanting to get revenge, hence the reason why there is a viewing room.
3. What happens if the wrong person is arrested and found guilty? It happens ALL THE TIME where people were imprisoned for over a decade for a crime they didn't commit.
4. Officials try to soften the concept of killing someone by performing a medical procedure with different types of medication.
I am 100% for it.
The executions should be public and horrific. My grandfather, a ww1 veteran, said a hanging he saw as a boy was the most gruesome thing he ever saw.
In the province of Walachia, Vlad Tepesch (Dracula) imposed such severe penalties for crime that it was said a merchant could leave a wheel barrow full of silver outside of an inn for the evening and no would would touch it.
Look at the daily videos of urban "youths" victimizing the helpless and innocent. Believe me- a few public hangings would put an end to such behavior over night. Criminals are cowards and would not risk such an end for their amusement any longer.
1. Society does not say its immoral to kill a criminal. An eye for an eye- that's what society says.
2. Less about punishing the criminal? BS- they are killed and thus they have their most valuable asset-life- revoked. What's wrong about revenge?
3. An innocent person being found guilty occurs very infrequently. You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. The BS notion of protecting the "one innocent in a thousand" has created the crime in America.
4. Soften the concept of killing? BS- many states use the electric chair or hangings as their means of execution. An execution should not be humane. The method of execution should be on par with the level of "humanity" the criminal showed their victim.
If one of your children was murdered, I'll bet everything you would want revenge. You are just virtue signaling in a hypothetical situation which you are convinced you will never face and are showing contempt for the victims of crime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
