I think that the death penalty should be used. Is it really fair that some one who murders someone gets to go to jail for life when they killed someone? How come this person should get less punishment than the innocent person they murdered? Well they should not. If there it is murder (not self defence) then that person should take what they dished out.

In jail you shouldnt be able to watch tv, go online, lift weights, or do any other activity. Harsh? NOT really you do the crime you pay the time. There should be no death penalty because they shouldnt have rights in jail, it should be a miserable experience they killed someone why should they be treated well? The death penalty, you would think would be the easy way out for members in jail to wish they could die, but instead its 'dreaded' cuz they are treated well in jail. They should be treaty poorly, because they have caused pain to others. They shouldnt have the luxary of tvs and computers they should be in a cell with a bed and a toilet, and it be SMALL.

And for those who havent murdered, jail should be such a bad place that they never go back cuz itll SUCK. But instead jail is a pretty good place and many people like to be in it cuz they get everything for free.

You did a crime why should you be treated like a king/queen?

They shouldn't use the death penalty..

When you're dead you don't know anything, you're just dead..
It's better to put the criminal in a small cell with a small bed en 2 times per day getting food.. so he knows what he did and he suffers also pain..

its worst to spend life in prison cause thenthe see what poor a chose they made and they might go crazy. chair wow no way that teaches them nothingbecause they don't feel it.

The death penalty should not be used. After all, what is the purpose of punishment? The way you answer that question inevitably dictates how you view the issue. For instance, if you view punishment as a sort of exacting revenge, then the death penalty achieves that revenge: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. However, my belief is that punishment has several different functions.

1. Rehabilitation
Ideally, any punishment given to the criminal would reform that criminal to be reassimilated into society. In this case, punishment is penance and a time to reflect on the bad deed in order to fix oneself to to good. However, the death penalty is execution, where the criminal has absolutely no time for reformation, as they are dead.

2. Protection
If society has no means of defending itself from criminals, then they must be done away with. It would not be to anyone's benefit to have rapists and murderers roaming free. This is a major reasons why there are prisons—we can isolate them so they are unable to harm anyone. The presence of these prisons, however, makes the death penalty obsolete in this facet in industrialised nations, where prisons are almost fulproof. Raving lunatics are not escaping from their prisons any time soon.

3. Deterrence
This is probably the only real argument the death penalty may have for existing in most places. Deterrence means that the punishment prevents others from performing the same crime. However, let me pose a question. If someone is in such a fit of rage that they would even consider taking another person's life, are they going to have the common sense to put their anger aside and consider the consequences? My answer is no. Furthermore, there are no statistics showing any correspondence between death penalty and lower murder rates.

So from these three goals of punishment, execution holds no place in most modern societies. Whereas I can see capital punishment being a necessity in some environments such as third-world countries where unstable governments and prisons have the tendency to allow prisoners to escape, industrialised, modern nations have no justification for the death penalty apart from sheer bloodlust. The death penalty, in fact, isn't even instituted in most western countries; the largest practitioner is the United States (which also outranks in murders-per-capita just about every other western country).

i don't agree in death penalty, i prefer life in prision.

What good will do if you just kill the person for their violent behaviors and crimes, isn't it better to let them repend for their sins with all their lifes?

Killing is non-sense even because if you kill a person, probably he/she will never nothing ever again (i don't believe in life after death as it is thought... ) so you're giving peace to someone who doesn't deserve it... is there any real good in it?

i think not... i would prefer to let them repend with all their lifes... but that's just me

cheers

This post has been edited by sasuki: May 12 2006, 09:04 AM

Reports from NGOs opposed to the death penalty tend to publicise the view that abolition is a global trend. In 1977, 16 countries were abolitionist, while the figure was 122 for the end of 2005. In more detail, 86 countries have abolished capital punishment for all offences, 11 for all offences except under special circumstances, and 25 others have not used it for at least 10 years. However, Sri Lanka recently declared an end to its moratorium on the death penalty. A total of 74 countries retain it. Among retentionist countries, eight use capital punishment on juveniles (under 18). China performed more than 3400 executions in 2004, amounting to more than 90% of executions worldwide. In China, some inmates are executed by firing squad, but it has been decided that all executions will be in the form of lethal injections in the future. Iran performed 159 executions in 2004.[3]. The United States performed 60 executions in 2005. Texas conducts more executions than any of the other U.S. states that still permit capital punishment, with 359 executions between 1976 and 2006. Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita, with 70 hangings for a population of about 4 million.

In demographic terms, many retentionist countries have large populations and high population growth. When the relative demographic proportion between retentionist and abolitionist countries is taken into account, this may indicate an underlying trend of increase in retentionist population, which is seemingly shifted in favour of the number of abolitionist countries when new countries switch to being abolitionist. However, it is important to note that use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in retentionist countries, which is often masked by the population growth because it may nonetheless increase the number of executions being carried out. Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed and democratic countries that have the death penalty. The death penalty was overwhelmingly practiced in poor, undemocratic, and authoritarian states, which often employed the death penalty as a tool of political oppression. During the 1980s, the democratization of Latin America (with its long history of progressive and Catholic tradition) swelled the rank of abolitionist countries. This was soon followed by the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, which then aspired to emulate neighbouring Western Europe. In these countries, the public support for the death penalty is low and/or decreasing. The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practice the death penalty. The only European country to do so is Belarus - this is one of the reasons that Belarus is excluded from the Council of Europe. On the other hand, democratisation and rapid industrialisation in Asia have been increasing the number of retentionist countries that are democratic and/or developed. In these countries, the death penalty enjoys strong public support, and the matter receives little attention from the government or the media. This trend has been followed by partial democratisation in some African and Middle Eastern countries where the support for the death penalty is high.


see more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

a bit more

At one time the death penalty was used in almost every part of the globe; but over the last few decades many countries have abolished it. Amnesty International classifies countries in four categories. 74 countries still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. 86 countries have abolished it completely; 11 retain it, but only for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war). 25 other countries maintain laws permitting the use of the death penalty for ordinary crimes, but have allowed the death penalty to fall into disuse for at least 10 years. Finally, it is not unknown for countries to practise extrajudicial execution sporadically or systematically outside their own formal legal frameworks.

Depends, do you want them to live the rest of their miserable life i utter hell in a high security prison or put an end to their life quickly.
I put don't care becasue its the closest option to depending on how they kill the person.