Should death penalty be mandatory for people who kill other people?

Andrew

depends on what they were charged with
if it was manslaughter, i wouldnt kill them too but if it were like preemptive homicide then i think so
it costs enarly 10,000 to keep 1 prisoner in prison for 1 year. if youre going to be in prison for your entire life your just wasting our money so we might as well kill you instead. of course some people say there innocent and such so i think they should go to prison for like 10 or 15 years just to make sure the case it completely solid, and then they die.

Alice

I oppose to this idea as well, but a few arguments for it are:

Someone who takes a life should not deserve to keep theirs. They have sacrificed the "right" to their life.
Killing a murderer is the only way to make sure he or she can never murder again. Often a prisoner can leave prison early for whatever reason.
If someone is planning a murder but doesn't want to die himself, knowing he could be killed for his crime could be the most powerful deterrent.

Try this website: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/issues.htm

Phantom

Not automatically mandatory for murder.

But if someone has committed a gruesome torture and murder (like for long periods of time) or has murdered multiple people, and the jury is 100% certain that this person is undoubtably guilty with no margin of error, than I think they should be placed in an 8x8 cell until their death day arrives.

Same goes for rapists.
Double goes for rapist murderers.

Ricky D

I am also on the other side.

Death penalty should be mandatory because

- otherwise many judges would impose a lesser sentence
- to make it an effective deterrent, otherwise murderers will think they can get away with a short prison stretch
- as a means of natural selection, to prevent murderers from reproducing, so that the human race can evolve into a more civilized race
- to provide closure to relatives of the murderee.

Hotnail.com

No individual or organization has the right to take the life of another individual.

Firstly because we cannot create life; so we cannot take life.

As princess has rightly pointed out that the individual could actually be innocent and the evidence against him could be fabricated.

And the justice system over most of the world is based on the premise that even if a 100 guilty persons go scott free, not one innocent person should be damned.

Of course terrorists look at this as a soft attitude and use it to ask for the release of prisoners in exchange for the release of civilians.

In this matter I respect America's stand that there will be no negotiations.

I'm sorry I cannot help you.

Ricky

I am also against it, but for an argument you could use cost. If the penalty was mandatory (no appeals) then it would be far cheaper to execute someone than keep them in jail for life. Right now it costs more to execute them because they can appeal the decision which costs court time.

Princess

No, because there could've been false evidence linking the person to the crime and in reality, the person is actually Innocent. No one should have the right to kill someone based on false evidence, alone.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: