Staredit Network

I was just wondering what people here thought about it.

I have seen this topic before but it wasnt this broad so I think this will be better and it wasnt a poll.

I believe in the death penalty. It is simple and quick. Even though I dont think it is the worst punishment but it is the easiest. Like instead of paying taxes to keep poeple in jail for 50+ years, just kill them. Also jails arent made to have an over population of in-mates. It pays to keep the death penalty.

I think I heard this here, but it'll end up costing more to put the person to the death penalty,with all the court stuff, than to keep the person in jail.

Although, I am for it, for specificly proven people, that everybody knows what they done. Some people can be declared guilty, but are innocent, and if they ended up losing their life it wouldn't be good.

I agree with you, I think that the death penalty is great. I look on it like what is going to be the best for the world instead of worst for the person that is going to be punished. I mean, if the person is killed the world gets rid of him directly, which I say is the best thing.

Well, now it is better with less mistakes made by the Investigating poeple, with the new technology less and less innocent people are being proven quilty. Ya there has been some people sentanced to death that later on were proven innocent.

And if they were particularly naughty, Torture (Farty's a pro) + Death Penalty.

I agree with it. I believe its possible for a person to do something so terrible they deserve to be killed for it. Although, my biggest complaint about the US execution system is how long they draw it out. If a person is sentenced to death, then they sit on death row for 10 or 20 more years. I guess its time for them to try and appeal it. Y'know, criminal rights and all. That means that its possible for you to die waiting for the person who killed your loved ones to be executed. But just look at Iraq's execution laws, for example. If someone is sentenced to death, then they must be executed within 30 days of the sentence's confirmation. Swift justice.

Yeah, that makes more sense. Unless there's literally a million people waiting to be executed every year, it should happen faster.

The prison system is terrible. "Sit in this place and feel guilty for 15 years". Yes. As if someone feeling guilty will make anything better. The only problem with this is that I can't think of a good alternative.

I believe it costs more money for the death penalty. Especially with the toxin and the eletricity bill .
Anyways I dont believe in it. It is wrong for another person to take another's life. Its like murder, but legal.

I don't care about the economy of the justice system, i just think it isn't moral to sentence somebody to death.

1. People that are innocent can get killed.
2. Potential to put the accuseds family and friends through a lot of mental and emotional anguish.
3. Killing somebody because they killed somebody doesn't make it right, you are still a murderer the fact you are getting paid money to kill them is pathetic.
4. Human rights say we have the right to live, that is a violation of the human rights, even if they did kill somebody.
"Two wrongs don't make a right"
5. When chosing agree, strongly agree, disagree, strongly disagree in English class the otherday i noticed the people that were at strongly disagree were the people already getting in trouble with the law at the age of 15 - 17, potentially they will continue to face the law. What makes it worse is that 2 of the people in the strongly disagree group got suspended the otherday for bringing in replica guns along with 2 others, putting our school in lockdown mode half the day.
6. Believe it or not there is racism in the death penalty and potentially black people are more exposed to it then white.

Potentially the only defense you have against this is
"an eye for an eye" "what goes around comes around" "justice has been served"

Well the flaws of those are.

"an eye for an eye"
If somebody kills your wife, friend or other family members, and you kill them because if it, you can still face the death penalty.

"what goes around comes around"
If you are killing them for their crimes against society you deserve to die too.

"justive has been served"
and so has being not moral at your own expences through tax.

Hey look! We agree! Anyways, I also think that it is wrong to put someone to death when you don't know the circumstances (or at all). I do not think that anyone has the right to kill another person. In many cases a person that is either on death row or has already been executed has been put to death. I feel that the worse for them yet more ethical alternative is to give them life in prison without the possibility of parole. This would allow them to get out if they were actually innocent while having them to be in jail for the rest of their life. The cost of incarceration could easily be eased by making them work.

Right now that is correct. Which is why for the moment, in practice, I'm against the death penalty. However, if it can be made cheap enough, sure, there are people who certainly deserve to be killed.

1. Innocent people can also get put in jail. No matter what the system, at some point some innocent person is going to get punished. All we can do is try to keep it to a minimum. To avoid killing innocent people, one possible idea would be to require a worse crime for the death penalty if the evidence for it was weaker, that way you should be able to minimize sentencing innocent people to death.
2. How about having it so they can pay the extra cost to keep him in jail rather than killing him?
3. This is a ridiculous argument. The person who presses the 'kill' button is not doing it for his own sadistic pleasure, and whether he is or not what he's really doing is rendering the rest of society a service. Face it, there is a difference between killing an innocent person and killing an evil criminal.
4. We have our rights by default, but we can still forfeit them by infringing on those of other people. If you say everyone has the same rights, then technically we shouldn't be able to even lock criminals up in jail. And two wrongs may not make a right, but killing someone who has forfeited his right to live is not a wrong, so this is irrelevant.
5. Uh...your point being?
6. Racism is just as much of a problem whether or not we have the death penalty in place. It is a separate issue; its effects may interlock with those of the death penalty, but its causes do not. Sorry, but this argument has no bearing on the issue at hand.

That doesn't mean you weren't right to do it.

Why? You didn't give any backup for that statement.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Think of it more as removing a burden on society (which is what it is).

It costs more to give the death penalty?

It costs $19200 per year to keep one person in jail. Imagine a life sentance of someone that goes in at age 25 and lives until the age of 80. Thats $1,056,000. 100 people in this same position cost $105,600,000. Lets say that we have too many poeple behind bars, we have to make more room. We build more prison. Costing roughly a couple million. Every state could easily spend billions and billions every year.

The idea is that by violating someone else's right to live (ie murder), you lose your own. With each right you have, you have a corresponding duty not to infringe on other's rights. Once you neglect that duty, your right is gone.

The death penalty would be much better for our government if we managed to get it to run smoother instead of keeping a person in prison for 20 years before you finally execute them. Theres also the fact that some people who are sentenced to deaht may really be innocent, but after all if they were going to go to jail death may be more mercy than punishment. There was a case about a guy who was said to have raped and killed a girl but he wasnt really guilty and when DNA testing came out they proved him innocent and he was in jail for like 15 years. He was on that one guys show that has the world with all those small lightbulbs in the backround.

As much as we would like that, not everyone is perfect and everyone causes problems. I guess the whole human race should be under the death sentence.

You can take back a sentence in jail. You cannot take back the death sentence. Sure, they may lose years in jail unjustly, but it's far better than losing their life unjustly.



That is favoring the rich and would not be productive at all. It's not their fault that someone they loved did something wrong. They shouldn't be punished for the person's wrongdoing.



Murder is murder despite whether it is for an innocent person or a criminal. I don't see who it is hurting to let them live. Incarceration is supposed to be punishment for the criminal, not revenge for the family of the killed.



Humans don't have any innate rights. They have the rights afforded to them by society and nothing more. If you are born in the wild you do not have any natural rights, only those rights you give to yourself. To say that you have the right to infringe on the rights of a person because they infringed on the rights of a person is hypocritical and makes little sense. Okay, I think that murder is bad so I'm going to kill something. That makes sense.



Extra factory workers never hurt anyone. If we put the people who would have gotten the death penalty to work in exchange for limited benefits it would benefit society and would not burden it.



You mention how we should quicken the process of the death penalty then give an example of why we shouldn't.

By knowing both sides of the arguement and understanding them both can lead a person to make a better decision than he would have normally made. Theres ways to counter-act things like unjust death penalty. You could make laws such as you can only sentence a person to death who has over 2 witnesses against him, and DNA at the scene or such and such.

Well, there are such laws that have similar effects. In criminal cases, the defending party must be convicted without reasonable doubt.

I don't think anybody's mentioned this yet, but in America, one purpose of the death penalty is not only as a punishment, but to also serve as a deterrent for future criminals (I can cite the Supreme Court case law for this....gimme a day or two to look it up).

It's one of the reasons mentally retarded people cannot have the death penalty imposed on them...they don't have enough moral culpability to realize this deterrent.

That being said, I'm also a supporter of the death penalty, but because this punishment is already reserved for the "worst of the worst criminals".

I dunno, for some people, this issue really comes down to economics vs. "human rights" (whatever you think those should be)....

I understand that you should know both sides of the argument. However, you should have mentioned your counter-counter-argument in the text of your main argument. If you had stated the 2 witness / DNA idea in your original post it would have made sense. That said, I think your idea would make the death penalty far less prone to error. If I didn't think the death penalty was barbaric anyways I might even agree with you.


While I don't doubt that the Supreme Court case existed, I think that the death penalty isn't really that much of a deterrent as you must have something wrong with you mentally to commit crimes that merit the death penalty. People who have some mental disorder or illness are not likely to be thrown off murder by the fact that they might get the death penalty. Most probably think they won't be caught.

I think that prison should be rehabilitation. It has been proven that rehabilitation has worked far better than mere incarceration or punishment. This also allows them to be productive members of society rather than an ex-criminal marked with an unshakable stigma.

These better "investigations" aren't always perfect. And you can't sue the government after you're dead. I'am thumbs down for this kind of punishment. Deterrant for criminals? America is in one of the nations having top criminal rates in the world. And, besides South Korea, U.S. is the only developed democratic country with death penalties still in active use.

How will you be able to tell which DNA is correct? Theoratically, a murderer could make all the tools he used make it look like it was the victim's and then the victim is the criminal.

So, murdering someone while noone is watching will make the person not to be sentenced to death and someone with witnesses will?

You cant make someone look like they killed themselves. What you said was impossible. There is always DNA left from the murderer. A spec of dirt could have enough to take someone down. Technology now can find stuff like that.

You ever thought of framing? Innocent people can be put to the death penatly because someone might of put a piece of dead skin near the crime scene. Death penatly is clearly wrong. United States is based on a fundemental of Christianity. One of the 10 commandments is Thy shall not murder, yet how does the government get a privledge to kill someone? All they should do is keep them in one of the most secure jail. Even though I'm a republican, I still don't like the fact of death penatly. As in the Republicans of Texas where the death penatly is most active and it is a "Republican" state.