I am split between two sides on this topic
The death penalty looms in america to put off criminals commiting murder/ extre drug crime. If that wasn't upheld , then the crime rate would rise even faster. They ignore it and they know what to expect. Then they campaign against it , saying it's inhumane and that it is a breach of human rights. For me , as soon as you influence the death of somebody else , your human rights disintegrate. You don't deserve them anymore when you've ignored somebody elses
On the other hand , people could have been disorientated , confused , influenced , mentally ill. But that doesn't ussually take effect on a death penalty trial. But if they recovered when the trial took place , death would be imminent.
=/ I don't think I'll ever make my mind up

I don't believe that there should be a death penalty. This is not because I value of the lives of murderers, but because I realize the limitations of the legal system. Too often there are cases where innocent people have been sent to Death Row. If there was a way to know with absolute certainty that a person was guilty, then I would probably be alright with the death penalty, but it is too easy for a jury to be misled, lied to, or confused. This has happened multiple times here in the US, despite the fact that we have one of the better legal systems in the world. That's why I can't support a death penalty.

On the other hand, I might support a very limited death penalty for crimes such as genocide, and extreme mass murderers. I didn't really mind that they chose to give Saddam Hussein the death penalty, his crimes were rather obvious.

I fully believe in the death penalty. I believe that if you murder someone, why should mercy be spared on your life? Did you stop to see if anyone would mind before you killed someone? I doubt it, so why should we stop to see if anyone cares if you die. Everyone is cared about in one way or another, so not only are you hurting the person you kill, but their family, and I believe that you do not deserve to live after something like that. I also think it should be spread out to people who commit other sorts of crimes, such as rapists and child molesters. These crimes can ruin the lives of the victims, and shouldn't the criminal also have to pay, and I mean a little more than living for free with 3 free meals a day, and just being bored all the time.

Next thing you know, it will spread to abortionists and robbers. I don't believe in the death penalty simply because of two reasons: One, because if the death penalty is incurred, it will start to leak down into smaller crimes as well, and two, that these murderers can get over it and still be valuable members of society. I've also heard that while in prison, the murderers are so bored that they start going mad and wishing they were dead.

As well, some people murder for religious or spiritual reasons (read: Al-Qaeda), and will consider dying an honor. Do you want to give them that honor, or make them pay by not killing them and withholding it?

Even Christians shouldn't be so fast to embrace the death penalty. Maybe Jews who still follow Mosaic law, but not Christians. Did Jesus not say, "Forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven." If the murderer does repent during the 25 years that he is in prison, then he should not receive any further punishment, other than the life sentence that he already has.

As well, the death penalty is slowly dying out itself. Even the US only had about 1,000 institutional murders last year, down from 10,000 a few decades ago. Although it is legal in almost all the states, the death penalty is slowly diminishing into non-use in developed countries. If you really want it back, voice out your opinion.

Then why is it that the US is looking into more humane ways to kill people? If it really is as you say, then why not give the murderers a slow, painful death? Preferably by using the good ol' breaking wheel, or shooting a lead bullet into their stomach. Maybe you could use an electric chair set at 10,000 volts at 0.1 ampères? That would take 25 seconds to kill them.



The point here is the difference between civil rights and basic human rights. Just because you rape someone doesn't make you any less human than if you didn't. (Of course, some people would argue otherwise.) Of course you throw away your civil rights when you commit a crime, such as the right to vote, speak freely, and move freely. But your basic human rights, like the right to life, still remain. (Of course, in the case of a fetus, it does not have the basic human rights yet, not because they were taken away, but simply because they weren't given yet. I don't want to contradict myself by supporting the choice of abortion.)

This post has been edited by tricky77puzzle: Mar 15 2008, 01:54 PM

If a person murders another person i think there should be no death penalty. Given the nature of the crime premeditated or not they should not be killed for killing someone.

But if a person murders multiple people like 2, 3, or 4 then yes they should face the death penalty. Also if a child is murdered then they should face the death penalty right away.

There should be no excuse besides self defense but now a days you some times cant even get off for self defense.

Of course there's no excues for murder, but there is an excuse from death penalty.

If you give the prisoner a life sentence, which is recommended for murder, only if he breaks out can you really give him/her the death penalty for repeat offenses.
If a child is murdered you can force him to adopt a child while he is in prison, and put him in a padded room instead of one with hard concrete walls.

If you kill someone for self-defense, you can't call it murder, because murder is killing with the intention of killing. So, your argument is inconsistent.

I dont believe that there should be a death penalty, for one reason and one reason only. What if they get it WRONG. From 1973 until 2003, 103 people were released from death row, (and prison), in the USA, with evidence of their innocence proven in court. How many were not? How many were deliberately put there on false evidence. Call me a cynic, but not all policemen are good blokes... Some are downright criminal.
103 people in 30 years might not sound like a lot, but if even 1 innocent person gets killed by the state, thats 1 too many. And I'll bet that every one of those 103 folks wouldnt care that it sounds like a small number either.
Thats the only argument I have, and I'll stand by it. Thank god we dont have it in this country.

i don't think there should be the death penalty. by killing the murderer you are just as bad as him. its like if someone robs of you, you don't rob them back you tell the police and they will be dealt with. if does something to you and you tell the polic the penalty for them is never you get to do it back to them it is either a fine or a jail sentence. so i don't see how death should be any different.