As mentioned in the debate link below, until we can cure homicidal, antisocial, rapists and murderers, all we can do is protect society by removing these individuals.

Some people in this world are sick and they DO deserve to die. Society doesnt accept these kinds of people and it will only create unsettling tension if they were still alive. Murderers, rapists, ect. that are completely engulfed in crime probably can not be "cured" by treatment. Why should we waste tax dollars to keep these creeps alive? So they can eat, sleep, and cause more trouble, even in jail. Jails are becoming more overcrowded than ever. NO, dont criticize the justice system (even though it is flawed, but thats another debate) for prosecuting too many people. The simple solution to keep the jail numbers down is execution to the people that truly deserve it.

death penalty ensures that the murderer will not kill again.

capital punishment is just an appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes.

execution cannot truly represent justice,because there is no recompense to balance the weight of murder.this isn't just to punish the person responsible for the crime but to assure that the victim's family has comfort.

the punishment of these murderers has been earned by the pain and sufferings they have imposed on their victims.for some crimes,death penalty is the only punishment available.

It costs up to 50% more to give someone the death penalty than letting them live out their life in jail. Also, I find it to be nothing more than a revenge tactic, and a way to leave more space in prisons. It doesn't matter if the culprit is dead or still alive, what they did is irreversible.

I believe there is nothing righteous about killing someone in the name of justice, when it is actually vengeance.

An eye for

leaves use all Blind.

Who are we as humans to decide whether another should live or die. We are basically committing the same sin as we are reprimanding. Sure, I know some people are sick and will never change with psychological treatment. And when those people commit sick crimes that are unforgivable to society, they may deserve to die. But I think giving someone the chair or injecting them to die is kinda helping them. Its an easy way out of jail. Some people in jail for life want a way out, they attempt suicide regularly. Helping them die is helping their wishes. After all, in jail, specifically death row, youre not human. You are told when to talk, walk, sleep, eat. There is nothing you can control by yourself, except of course, when to escape through death. (suicide).

it would be worse to them if they where 24 had a life sentence and he lived to a 100

Is it fair to kill humans just because it costs money? Is money suddenly more important than human life? I was taught human life is the most important thing in the world. Maybe I learn wrong....

First death sentence is just motivated by revenge, without it having any real justifiable reason. Putting a man in jail is as effective towards preventing him from committing further crimes as is killing him.

Secondly, when you kill a man, you kill him. You can't revoke death so if you killed him wrongly, you still killed him. I doubt a man or woman is very useful when dead.

I actually think, the most humane way around the problem, is to let the felon decide. I picked this side only because I think most would choose this side.

In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime when they know the penalty that would meet them is their death.

Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a society or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death.

The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments.