No, because innocents are convicted, quite a lot, and the life of an innocent isn't worth a thousand murderer's.
Poll: The Death Penalty
- Thread starter Chunko
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The death penalty is a slippery slope. Without it; Crimes carry the highest risk of living in a compound that you can never leave, get 3 meals a day and only worry about your fellow inmates coming to either rape you or take your food.
But with it. some people rethink whether or not to commit a crime that would potentally get them sent to the chair. Certainly there are circumstances to many crimes and punishments. Do you sentence a man to death because he killed a family with a knife? Certainly. But what if say he lost control of his car due to a malfunction and killed 6 people in a head on collision? Life? or 6 months?
When it comes down to it. I would say, that Murder, Rape, and Kidnapping should have the Death Penalty. But only if they are proved beyond a doubt.
I will say though, I havnt looked at any statistics but common sense tells me that if a state outlawed the death penalty they will see an increase in crime.
But with it. some people rethink whether or not to commit a crime that would potentally get them sent to the chair. Certainly there are circumstances to many crimes and punishments. Do you sentence a man to death because he killed a family with a knife? Certainly. But what if say he lost control of his car due to a malfunction and killed 6 people in a head on collision? Life? or 6 months?
When it comes down to it. I would say, that Murder, Rape, and Kidnapping should have the Death Penalty. But only if they are proved beyond a doubt.
I will say though, I havnt looked at any statistics but common sense tells me that if a state outlawed the death penalty they will see an increase in crime.
I disagree with it. If you condemn a murderer for killing a child, what does it say about you that you would kill him in retribution? If it has to be used, at least do it humanitarianly. A precise shot to the head would be more merciful than a lethal injection, in my opinion.
*sigh* Not this thread again.
I'm against it because killing is bad and eye for an eye doesn't make things right, it just makes two people half-blind.
I leave now, this thread is heading into bad places like every other death penalty thread.
I'm against it because killing is bad and eye for an eye doesn't make things right, it just makes two people half-blind.
I leave now, this thread is heading into bad places like every other death penalty thread.
First and foremost it's more expensive to give someone the death-sentence than it is to make them serve a lifetime in prison
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Secondly I do not believe the State should have the authority to decide if a person lives or dies, so I'm definitely against the Death Penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Secondly I do not believe the State should have the authority to decide if a person lives or dies, so I'm definitely against the Death Penalty.
I'll be in favour of it as soon as the legal system is 100% perfect. Until then I'll never trust a system well enough to believe it has the right to deside to end a life.
I do however belive that civilians and the police should have more rights to use force (including lethal force) against criminals at the time they are commiting the crime.
I do however belive that civilians and the police should have more rights to use force (including lethal force) against criminals at the time they are commiting the crime.
Did you even read my source? Where's your source? Oh right you're just making things up. It's called the court system of appeals bud.JaredXE said:
Actually, I DID read your source, and I also read that it's board of directors are mostly anti-death penalty advocates....their info might be a little biased.That_Which_Isnt said:
And people NOT on death row never make appeals? The appeals court is hit with EVERY kind of case, not just life or death ones. But the obvious, most common sense thing is this: Removing a criminal removes the costs associated with keeping them alive. It takes more money to lock someone up than to fry them.
Now, objecting on moral grounds, that's fine. My morality says otherwise, but all that is is differing opinions. But permanently removing someone so that they never commit anymore crimes or cost anybody is a much more worthwhile idea in my eyes.
It's because there's an entirely different longer more elaborate process you go through with a capital case. I still have yet to see sources from you.JaredXE said:
