Death penalty yes or no?

JOHN Q

In England, we do, in fact, have the Death penalty. But this is little known about. I am led to believe that the only 2 crimes which still carry this penalty however, are:
1: Piracy on the High Seas (High Seas being out into international waters) and
2: Setting fire to her majectys dock yards.

I'm pretty sure no one has been found guilty for these for a while, but I'd quite like myself to see some more added back to the list, especially now we have good DNA evidence etc ...

.45 Peacemaker

Yes. It keeps the evildoer from harming anyone ever again. There will be no escapes.

It also helps the victim's families heal. Unless a person doesn't go through a violent crime you might not understand how it grates against the hearts and minds of the families.
It brings some measure of peace to the families.

wlvrne1964

I'd prefer a federal death penalty system in America.
Even if someone is sentenced to 100 years, no parole for his/her crime, there's always that off-chance that a bleeding-heart governor could commute that sentence.

And parole for murderers? Please.

p.s. I'm sure Mya & Wuzzie would have a change of heart if those 100 free criminals were loose in their neighborhoods.

chris

Yes. If it was my way, I would decapitate those sub-humans who do cruel things like rape or kill. They deserve it. Or you can sterilize them for the heck of it before you kill them. And i dont mean with laser, i mean with machetes.

Karasu

I don't support the death penalty for several reasons...

I don't think it is the place of one man to decide whether or not a person should live....but if that were the only reason then I could still support it but...

We can't seem to get it right. In my home state, it has been PROVEN ith dna evidence that innocent men were put to death. In my mind that is good enough reason to put all death sentences on hold until we can get our act together as a planet...or forever whichever comes first.

The main reason that pro death penalty advocates state is that they want it to act as a detterant for other criminals. But, I think most hard criminals want to die anyway, or at least they don't care if they die. Sometimes they hae absolutely nothing to lose by dying,(in their mind) maybe they are addicted to drugs, or down on their luck, or etc...

Diamond in the Rough

As you can see from the previous answers the death penalty is easy to joke about when they are personally not involved. Unfortunately the death penalty has been used in history as a source of entertainment for some. I say No..We should never kill and sort is out later, that's why some countries have such a horrible past history, many serious issues are a form of entertainment. Poverty, Discrimination, The Death Penalty, Racism etc.......
P.S. Staticts show that there are many on death row on flimsy evidence, some have been exonerated after DNA.

Answerman

No to the death penalty for a bunch of reasons, but the main one is that mistakes are made all the time. I have set on jurys that I wouldn't want to have judge me. Besides if you are poor or Black you are automaticly guilty.

Cherriest

I do not personally agree with the death penalty. I think people that commit things such as rape, murder, etc should be locked away for life with the key thrown away... but I do not think that we have the right to take a person's life. 2 wrongs do not make a right. The person that committed the crime will one day stand before God and be judged.

kollan

it depends on the country bro
like here in iraq we need it so much but in another countries i dont think its good

Dustin W

kill them all and let god sort them out.

wuzzie

Death penalty is barbaric. Humanity has fought so hard to reach at least some level of enlightment and there are people who'd want to drag us kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.

I said this last time there was a discussion about the death penalty I'll say it this time:
Death Penalty has proven to only make crimes more violent more brutal. Especially when it comes to rape. A rapist will not stop raping because he is affraid to die. He'll just kill his victim so she wont be able to identify him.

b.bird

No. Thou shalt not kill.

J-ville boy

DEATH PENELTY YES!
SHOUDN'T OF KILLED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
ARGH!!!!

fiftycentsthisyear

I think the answer is a conditional yes but the condition can't be satisfied so in practice there would be no executions. Let me explain. We place extra burdens on the state for proof in capit cases to insure that only those who are guilty beyond any doubt are exposed to execution. The problem is that that standard is imposable to achieve. Look at Illinois (I think it was Ill.) after DNA became acceptable proof. I think it was about 1/3 of the people on death row were cleared of the crimes they had been convicted of. If we can insure the proper application we should apply the death penalty but we need to improve the system of proof before using the penalty.

planksheer

I don't believe we need to have a death penalty. Its barbaric.

mrfoxhorn

No to death penalty, I think they should be sentanced to life in the infantry, armed and let loose in problem countries like Iran.

dransom90

I think that if someone is proven guilty of murder, without a doubt, they should be put to death.

cristybustillo731

it is because i beleive that human life is sacred the i DO NOT beleive in the death penalty.
human life is always valuable, there shoudl always be forgivness, and even though the people who commit murder, rape, etc. deserve all the jail time they can get they shoudl never be MURDER just like they murder.
Violence teaches violence. hate teaches hate. How many times did we hear that an eye fo an eye doesnt work? why should it work now???

rinah

I think some people deserve the death penalty.

pistol pete

Death penalty no,GOD SAID, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL". The courts should have no rights or justifications on taking another individuals life.

Lady J

Yes, in principle.

Its a tricky one though because of the risk of people being wrongly convicted.

In South Africa there is no death penalty. For a lot of people the conditions in prison are better than their own conditions outside of prison, and the judicial system in this country is so bad that they generally don't serve out their full term, so why wouldn't they murder someone!?

If there was a death penalty then people would actually have something to fear to prevent them from committing the crime.

For those that murder for reasons other than poverty or survival, i.e. premeditated murder / crimes of passion etc., these people are dangerous and, in my opinion, have forfeited their basic human rights by taking the life of another.

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime!?

So in principle..."an eye for an eye", but then again, who's to say that its our responsibility to do the punishing...?!

Can'tStandYa!

yes

jeremy_14_13_4

Fry 'em.

Mohit Madaan

I think England law is absolutely fine, no death penalty should be there'

Mya

It's is not by chance that Europe is the cradle of modern civilisation, and our society is years ahead of the American concerning the death penalty. I'm absolutely against:
1. As the asker said that prevents u from killing inncent people
2.It's better to have 100 criminals free, than 1 innocent in jail
3. The prison for life is by far crueler punishment than the death, the only agrument against is that it's very expencive
4.we're living in the XXI centurie, not in the middle age
5.All men, whatever they commited can correct themselves and regret what they done.
well that's all

leftmykakeoutindarain

I think that if you take someones life, than the Government should take yours. However, if you are innocent, and you're on death row, then you need a better lawyer.

Firstd1mension

Obviously there's no absolute answer. Every society must commonly define its morals and values, and morals and values are by definition subjective. But, like the abortion issue, the real tough-nuts on either side are absolutely sure they're right and that every civilization on Earth and in the universe should live their way.

I say, let the people of each nation and each state decide for themselves, and find a home amongs the people you most agree with. And let those buggers across the river do as they please, so long as they keep it on their soil.

Final answer: there is no absolute answer. Different strokes for different folks.

debater41006

1.The argument that the death penalty deters crime doesnâ€™t hold water at a practical level. It relies on a rational model of human behavior. It assumes that would-be murderers go through a process of weighing pros and cons of killing. This assumption is wrong. Murders are committed under a blinding influence of rage, hatred, jealousy, or fear. The decisions to kill are made at a split second, with no room for thinking of consequences. With only 10% of all murders premeditated, the deterrence of the death penalty would only apply to those people, not a lot when you look to the thousands of murders being committed annually. Also, in 2004, when Canada abolished its death penalty, it saw a decrease of 47% in its crime rate. This just goes to show that Life Without Parole seems much scarier to these criminals. Now letâ€™s address my second point of analysis that murder is not justified on any level.
2.When we look to the philosophy of an eye for an eye, outlined in Hamarabiâ€™s Code, and apply it to the practice of the death penalty, all we would have is a perpetuating cycle of killings. A person murders someone else, then the government executes them, but then by the logic of the â€œeye for an eyeâ€ philosophy, the executioner should then be killed also, and the cycle continues. The only real philosophy that would stop the perpetuating cycle is that of Ghandi, that â€œan eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.â€ At the point where we understand that murder cannot be justified by the common criminal, or by the government, that is when the hypocrisy of our government ends, and the real deterrence takes step. Now letâ€™s address my third and final point of analysis that the death penalty is too expensive compared to alternatives, like life without parole.
3.Specifically looking to California in 2004, the government spent $1 billion on their death penalty only to execute five men. Many citizens, and myself, wonder why we waste outrageous amounts of money just to take a criminalâ€™s life away. There are better alternatives to the average $1.7 million the United States spends on each execution. We can use alternatives, such as life without parole, which costs on average about $750,000 for an entire life sentence. Remember representatives that we are spending outrageous amounts of money on the heinous criminals in our society, when we can be spending this money on much better areas of our nation. Vote with me in affirmation to abolish the death penalty and ultimately lend a helping hand to our constituents.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: