Is the death penalty a good or bad thing?
|
3
points
2
points
2
points
2
points
Where there is indisputable proof of guilt the death penalty should be imposed for a range of crimes including the murder of a police officer while performing his/her their duty, any premeditated homicide or violent murder involving the use of a lethal weapon which was carried by the murderer. Whether or not the death penalty acts as a deterrent, although I feel that it does, is irrelevant as it is only but right and proper that such filth is removed from society by the most economical method available. Hello n: It doesn't serve us well.. Over the last several years the Innocence Project has found over 100 people WRONGLY CONVICTED waiting to be executed.. That ALONE should cause us to stop.. Of course, SOME of you don't think innocence is reason enough to save a persons life... https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/ excon 1
point
Lets see, 100 people wrongly convicted and like most will never actually get executed. Why not take the numbers of people killed by repeat offenders. How many people who were not executed, killed again? If the number is more than 100, then we saved more innocent lives than we lost. What about guards and inmates in prison who are killed by these life without parole killers? These killers have nothing to lose. If there is any doubt to the guilt, then they should not give death penalty. 1
point
Lets say, if 100 people wrongly convicted, and like most will never actually get executed, and then take the numbers of people killed by repeat offenders, how many people who were not executed, killed again? If the number is more than 100, then we saved more innocent lives than we lost. What about guards and inmates in prison who are killed by these life without parole killers? These killers have nothing to lose. If there is any doubt to the guilt, then they should not give death penalty. 1
point
If there is any doubt to the guilt, then they should not give death penalty. I agree. But I wonder... what crimes are deserving of the death penalty? At what point do we say that it is better to kill someone than to try and give less permanent punishment. If the number is more than 100, then we saved more innocent lives than we lost. Hypothetical: the victims of the person you want to give the death penalty to were not innocent. What then? 1
point
That is a simple answer. Outright deliberate murder of another with no issues of self defense, or defense of another, or crimes of passion, should get the death penalty. For example, a woman who is being abused by someone and fears the possibility of the next abuse, should not get death penalty. If a guy goes home and his wife is in bed with another, there should be no death penalty. We have differing classes of murder such as premeditated, man slaughter, accidental, etc. i think we should have the death penalty because it will help with the overcrowding in prisons by eliminating serial killer,rapists,pedophiles,murderers etc. Also as i think they shouldn't get another chance as they have either taken an innocent life or traumatized someone for the rest of their life so why give them the luxury of 'reforming' or having somewhat of a decent life when they have ruined an innocent family's. Moreover if you look at it from the religious side of it the old testament says 'a tooth for a tooth' and 'an eye for an eye'. i might not be religious but this clearly indicates that if some kills they should pay for with their life as they have took someones freedom. so if I'm not mistaken taken someones freedom is far from legal therefore why shouldn't they repay it with their own life. |
