Death Penalty

[MrBlueSky]

Should we have the death penalty, and if so, what is a crime punishable by death?


Sorry if this has already been posted as a question, but I didn't see it in the last two months of posts.

[britishboy]

Should we have the death penalty, and if so, what is a crime punishable by death?


Sorry if this has already been posted as a question, but I didn't see it in the last two months of posts.

I have mixed feelings on this, if Hitler was captured would you want him executed?.

[Harry Smith]

No, innocent people would die from a death penalty, it doesn't act as a deterrent at all-Canada got rid of it in '75 and there murder rate went down by 40%.
The idea about Hitler is not relevant- if you executed him then you'd have to educate nearly every post ww2 us president for war crimes.
It's not about personal feelings or faults- it's about justice for society and in the case of some reform after prison

[drmindfreak]

No, never.

[likemike]

Yes, murderers and repeat offenders of serious crimes like rape should get death.

[thatcountrykid]

Oh heck yeah! Murderers, rapists, child abusers and molesters. They all deserve the death penalty.

[Sph2015]

Life in prison. Not death penalty. Wooh, Catholic social teaching! Haha

[Southside]

Yeah I believe the death penalty should be in place for those mass murderers and rapists, that kind of thing.

Look! Im Anti-war but Pro-death!

[Sugaree]

My religious beliefs have influenced my stance on the death penalty, which is why I'm against it. I just can't justify, in my mind, taking someone's life for the sake of a crime. Even if they murdered millions of others, I still couldn't bring it upon myself to sentence them to death. It takes a cold soul to do that, I think. I do believe that there are many innocent people on death row, and this is also partially why I oppose the death penalty, as it is sought too often in cases where life in prison can be sufficient.

My thought process: you're going to die anyway. Why exacerbate the process? Why make it come quicker? Who wins? Society? You're already locked away and out of the way of the population, and therefore, are no longer a problem when you're in prison. There is no true NEED for a death penalty, simply a WANT for a death penalty.

People WANT it because they WANT to see pain and suffering. They do not understand that, when they kill this individual, they are killing someone who also has a family that loves them despite what they might have done. Even Jeffrey Dahmer's parents visited him while he was in prison, and look what he did. People don't NEED the death penalty, they simply WANT it to inflict more suffering onto the world. And, really, isn't there enough suffering in the world today? Shouldn't we be trying to end suffering and pain, not causing it? The death penalty does not affect just the person you're putting to death, it is affecting the family of that person you executed.


Look! Im Anti-war but Pro-death!

Then you're a hypocrite of the highest order. One can not be anti-war and pro-death. I have never seen a more arrogant and hypocritical statement on this forum; congratulations, you've earned my ire.

[Harry Smith]

Oh heck yeah! Murderers, rapists, child abusers and molesters. They all deserve the death penalty.

Do you think that will stop the murder rate? It certainly won't.

I don't understand the logic where we commended someone for committing a crime such as sexual assault and then proceed to pump them full of toxins and poisons to kill them- how is that justice?

Innocent people would and have died under the death penalty- it's just an outdated way of people being able to enjoy the mob brutality feeling that came with lynching in the '30's

[johndoe1112]

Should we have the death penalty, and if so, what is a crime punishable by death?


Sorry if this has already been posted as a question, but I didn't see it in the last two months of posts.

i agree because if a school shooter was caught by the police do you want him to go into general population prison or do you want him to suffer what he did to the people he killed.

[johndoe1112]

Should we have the death penalty, and if so, what is a crime punishable by death?


Sorry if this has already been posted as a question, but I didn't see it in the last two months of posts.

i agree because if a school shooter was caught by the police do you want him to go into general population prison or do you want him to suffer what he did to the people he killed.

[fordgtguy]

I understand why they do it and sometimes i agree with it and sometimes i dont. Reason why i dont agree with it is because if you commit a serious crime (rape,murder) your should sit in jail and rot and let all the inmates deal with those guys. Reasons why i agree with it is if there is some serious serial killer then murder him/her they dont belong on this planet. Just my 2 cents.

[ksdnfkfr]

I think it is ugly and serves no purpose.
Killing someone is supposed to be the worst crime.
So to me it is like committing a crime to punish a crime.
I actually could care less if some murder/rapist/molester
is put to death. But it seems like a contradiction. And all
forms of execution are pretty gruesome when you think
about it. Again the good guys killing the bad guy in a
gruesome manner just doesn't make sense.
I will be those who have had to participate in carrying
out a death penalty were psychologically damaged by it.

[thatcountrykid]

Sorry my phone freaked. Could a mod remove this?

[thatcountrykid]

Do you think that will stop the murder rate? It certainly won't.

I don't understand the logic where we commended someone for committing a crime such as sexual assault and then proceed to pump them full of toxins and poisons to kill them- how is that justice?

Innocent people would and have died under the death penalty- it's just an outdated way of people being able to enjoy the mob brutality feeling that came with lynching in the '30's

Well then we just better make sure that they are gulty. And obviosly the evidence was against them enough to do so. I know it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper than keeping them alive for seventy years. Im guessing you think no one deserves the death penalty? What about james holmes? The boston bombers? Do they deserve to
Live?

[Twilly F. Sniper]

It has absolutely no purpose. If you really wanted to torture someone, you wouldn't KILL them. You'd make them die from other miscellaneous factors.

[Stronk Serb]

No life is worth taking.

[Harry Smith]

Well then we just better make sure that they are gulty. And obviosly the evidence was against them enough to do so. I know it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper than keeping them alive for seventy years. Im guessing you think no one deserves the death penalty? What about james holmes? The boston bombers? Do they deserve to
Live?

Are you that naive that you think it's a cause of making sure we're right- they've been so many cases where it looks clear cut due to the evidence yet the person charged is innocent. The court system isn't as simple as the goody gets found innocent, the baddie gets locked away.

it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper

So we should have a justice system based on cost rather than crime prevention and deterrence that's what you've pretty much said. I'm sure it would be cheaper to give police water pistols rather than firearms does that justify it?

I certainly wouldn't want James Holmes killed- he had mental issues-serious ones. I know that the US has a history of killing patients with an IQ of below 80 or ones who are insane but the madness needs to be stopped.

Everyone deserves to live- why should a judge determine who lives and dies? You can't give that amount of power to the courts. It's such fucked up logic to kill someone for killing and that act like your doing it for the greater good!

It's not about the individual or the crime- you shouldn't pick and chose with the death penalty because that completely devalues it and leads to rushed unfair justice. We should have a justice system based on blindness and equality before the law.

The US Constitution itself outlaws the death penalty is all forms as death through any means is a 'cruel and unusual punishment' and that's enforced by the UN convention on human rights.

The US needs to wake up and get rid of the death penalty- are you proud to be with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq Afghanistan and North Korea in regards to the draconian out dated practice of killing people for committing a crime?

[Sugaree]

Well then we just better make sure that they are gulty. And obviosly the evidence was against them enough to do so. I know it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper than keeping them alive for seventy years. Im guessing you think no one deserves the death penalty? What about james holmes? The boston bombers? Do they deserve to
Live?

They deserve a fair and honest trial before people like you start convicting them of crimes they are, so far, only being accused of doing.

[Jean Poutine]

Yes, let's give public power the right to kill a human being because he/she has done something the powers that be consider horrific enough to warrant the termination of a life.

Then, on which moral soapbox can the government stand to claim murder is wrong?

End a wrong by doing another wrong - what a brilliant idea! By being born, did you sign up on a social contract that gives the authorities the power of life or death over you, no matter the circumstances? Certainly, if the government can kill somebody because he killed somebody, it can also kill somebody for any other reason it sees fit, since it already possesses the de facto right to terminate a life. We gave up just enough liberty to be able to live out our lives in society without any trouble, and to ensure protection from a centralized power for our lives. That cannot possibly include our very life.

[nklarke]

Well, I agree with the death penalty only in extreme situations like a mass murder, a pedophile, terrorists (that planned and made the terror attack), etc.

The jail has been made with the idea or regenerate the offender. So, after x years in prison, you're ready to be part again of the society. Now, they're criminals who won't never reintegrate and that's in these extreme situation where I consider the death penalty should be applied. Of course, the accused as always, has right to have a lawyer, it has to be proven that he's guilty, etc.

[MechaSniper]

It depends on what they did. If they took a life then yea. Sabotaged a company 40 years

[Harry Smith]

It depends on what they did. If they took a life then yea. Sabotaged a company 40 years

Sabotaged a company? That's a bit of a strange crime, is it even a crime? Why should someone get 40 years in jail for that?

What kind of logic is it to kill someone for killing someone? How does that make any sense at all? Oh we're going to punish you for killing by killing you, the government or the courts shouldn't have this authority

[MechaSniper]

Sorry i didn't think it over.

[sqishy]

Life in prison, but not death. Not for anything. That's just making two negatives. And death sort of frees the person from their punishment.

[Vlerchan]

Well then we just better make sure that they are guilty.
An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

I know it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper than keeping them alive for seventy years.
Actually, it tends to be the other way around. Death Row trials tend to be exponentially expensive. (http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost)

And what Jean Poutine said.

[thatcountrykid]

Are you that naive that you think it's a cause of making sure we're right- they've been so many cases where it looks clear cut due to the evidence yet the person charged is innocent. The court system isn't as simple as the goody gets found innocent, the baddie gets locked away.



So we should have a justice system based on cost rather than crime prevention and deterrence that's what you've pretty much said. I'm sure it would be cheaper to give police water pistols rather than firearms does that justify it?

I certainly wouldn't want James Holmes killed- he had mental issues-serious ones. I know that the US has a history of killing patients with an IQ of below 80 or ones who are insane but the madness needs to be stopped.

Everyone deserves to live- why should a judge determine who lives and dies? You can't give that amount of power to the courts. It's such fucked up logic to kill someone for killing and that act like your doing it for the greater good!

It's not about the individual or the crime- you shouldn't pick and chose with the death penalty because that completely devalues it and leads to rushed unfair justice. We should have a justice system based on blindness and equality before the law.

The US Constitution itself outlaws the death penalty is all forms as death through any means is a 'cruel and unusual punishment' and that's enforced by the UN convention on human rights.

The US needs to wake up and get rid of the death penalty- are you proud to be with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq Afghanistan and North Korea in regards to the draconian out dated practice of killing people for committing a crime?

You didnt use my whole sentence. I said that the death penalty is cheaper than keeping the alive in jail for seventy years paying medical. And james holmes wasnt so crazy that he put a bomb in his apartment for police ir to use flashbang grenades in the theater. He deserves to die. Would you want hitler
Alive?
They deserve a fair and honest trial before people like you start convicting them of crimes they are, so far, only being accused of doing.

They received their trial and where found guilty by a jury Of their peers. Due process.

[Synyster Shadows]

I don't believe in the death penalty. As it's been said, life sentences in prison are sufficient punishment. It's just cruel, and somewhat hypocritical if the accused is a serial killer...

[Korashk]

I know it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper than keeping them alive for seventy years.
I'm surprised that the thread got this far without some support er of the death penalty ignorantly claiming this falsehood. Fact is, the entire process of the death penalty in America is ASTRONOMICALLY more expensive than sentencing someone to life imprisonment. This fact is incredibly simple to find out and i'm honestly shocked that people still think the death penalty is cheaper.

[Vlerchan]

You didnt use my whole sentence. I said that the death penalty is cheaper than keeping the alive in jail for seventy years paying medical.Again: on average a life sentence is the hugely cheaper option. Read this - all of this. (http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)

And james holmes [...] He deserves to die. Would you want hitler
Alive?
I know this wont get through to you but I'll make an attempt anyway: It's an absolutely awful practice to allow emotion to enter and cloud ones legal system; allow passion to overrule logic; allow revenge and reprisal to become part of the punishment process. It's quite frankly immoral to decide to murder someone - or deliver 'justice', as you might put it - based on feelings of spite or fury or because it's thought that a guilty-man need suffer to make the victim's family feel better.

They received their trial and where found guilty by a jury Of their peers. Due process.
Again, this is one of my biggest problems:
An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

[Sugaree]

They received their trial and where found guilty by a jury Of their peers. Due process.

No they haven't. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hasn't even gone to trial yet and James Holmes' case has been put on hold because the judge ordered more psych evaluations to be done. Shows how much you know. And, if by "jury of their peers" you mean the court of public opinion, then yes, they are guilty. But they have only been accused, they have not been found guilty as of now.

I have to ask a question: What gives you, or anyone for that matter, the right to say who lives and who dies? What has given you this God complex that makes you feel as if you can just line people up and judge, based on actions? Despite what people have done, the nature of a life is based on love and respect, no matter what that person has done.

[thatcountrykid]

No they haven't. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hasn't even gone to trial yet and James Holmes' case has been put on hold because the judge ordered more psych evaluations to be done. Shows how much you know. And, if by "jury of their peers" you mean the court of public opinion, then yes, they are guilty. But they have only been accused, they have not been found guilty as of now.

I have to ask a question: What gives you, or anyone for that matter, the right to say who lives and who dies? What has given you this God complex that makes you feel as if you can just line people up and judge, based on actions? Despite what people have done, the nature of a life is based on love and respect, no matter what that person has done.

James holmes was found not guilty by reason of insanity unfortunatley. I know.
The shootin may aswell have been in my own backyard. The boston bomber hasnt been sentenced because he has had no trial. He is being held awaiting trial.

Im gonna answer your question with one of my own. If some one killed your parents would you want them alive? Would you love and respect their killer?

[Sugaree]

Im gonna answer your question with one of my own. If some one killed your parents would you want them alive? Would you love and respect their killer?

I would forgive them. They may have taken something very dear and precious to me, but I would find it in myself to forgive them. To foster so much anger against someone that the only way to relieve it would be to kill them would mean I have failed as a human being. I have no right to say whether someone lives or dies, nor do I have the right to the opinion as to whether someone should be alive or dead. If it is destiny that someone should die, then so it shall be. If it is destiny that that soul should live, then so that shall be. Simple as. I will forgive them, and continue to love and respect them as a fellow human.

You see, I saw this argument coming. "Well, if they killed your parents, you wouldn't want the killer to live!" You highly underestimate the power of forgiveness, and while many people may not forgive the killer of their loved ones, you can't just say that, because these few did not forgive, that means everyone won't forgive.

Now, before you go any further, answer my question: What gives YOU the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who made YOU the one who could decide such things?

[thatcountrykid]

I would forgive them. They may have taken something very dear and precious to me, but I would find it in myself to forgive them. To foster so much anger against someone that the only way to relieve it would be to kill them would mean I have failed as a human being. I have no right to say whether someone lives or dies, nor do I have the right to the opinion as to whether someone should be alive or dead. If it is destiny that someone should die, then so it shall be. If it is destiny that that soul should live, then so that shall be. Simple as. I will forgive them, and continue to love and respect them as a fellow human.

You see, I saw this argument coming. "Well, if they killed your parents, you wouldn't want the killer to live!" You highly underestimate the power of forgiveness, and while many people may not forgive the killer of their loved ones, you can't just say that, because these few did not forgive, that means everyone won't forgive.

Now, before you go any further, answer my question: What gives YOU the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who made YOU the one who could decide such things?

You know you peoe can give me the love and respect crap but you would not feel the same when it happens.

And to answer your question the lose the right to life when they take someone elses for no reason at all. You know the bible even uses death as punishment.

[Jean Poutine]

You know the bible even uses death as punishment.

There is thankfully, something called separation of Church and State.

In other words, nobody sane cares what the Bible says on the subject, or do you propose we should extend to death penalty to stoning adulterers?

[Sugaree]

You know you peoe can give me the love and respect crap but you would not feel the same when it happens.

Call it crap all you want, but this is what MY religion teaches. What YOUR religion teaches, as indicated by the quote below

|
V
You know the bible even uses death as punishment.

clearly doesn't teach what mine teaches. So, we are at a standstill. My friend, we are both on the same mountain; however, we're on different trails. Different slopes for different folks.

But don't go and insult me by calling my opinions crap. In the end, they are just as valid as yours as long as I can back them up. Not only does that make you look bad in debate, it makes you look bad as a person. I can just as easily go and talk shit about your Bible, but will I? No, I'm a higher person than that.

[thatcountrykid]

Call it crap all you want, but this is what MY religion teaches. What YOUR religion teaches, as indicated by the quote below

|
V


clearly doesn't teach what mine teaches. So, we are at a standstill. My friend, we are both on the same mountain; however, we're on different trails. Different slopes for different folks.

But don't go and insult me by calling my opinions crap. In the end, they are just as valid as yours as long as I can back them up. Not only does that make you look bad in debate, it makes you look bad as a person. I can just as easily go and talk shit about your Bible, but will I? No, I'm a higher person than that.

Can i ask your religion?

And you have done the same personal attacks. That little "shows how much you know remark."

[Sugaree]

Can i ask your religion?

I am a Mahayana Buddhist.

And you have done the same personal attacks. That little "shows how much you know remark."

Yet, I never attacked your religion. I never attacked your personal beliefs. That is a completely different level of insult, my friend.

[thatcountrykid]

I am a Mahayana Buddhist.



Yet, I never attacked your religion. I never attacked your personal beliefs. That is a completely different level of insult, my friend.

I dont wish to turn this thread off topic but i never attacked your religion. And attacking ones intelligence is the same.

[Sugaree]

I dont wish to turn this thread off topic but i never attacked your religion. And attacking ones intelligence is the same.

You did when you said "You know you people can give me the love and respect crap but you would not feel the same when it happens." That attacked my religious beliefs. But hey, you're entitled to think however you want. Back on topic.

[thatcountrykid]

You did when you said "You know you people can give me the love and respect crap but you would not feel the same when it happens." That attacked my religious beliefs. But hey, you're entitled to think however you want. Back on topic.

I didnt mean to offend you and for that i apoligize. But a person who kills innocent people doesnt deserve to live so that they can do it again.

[Stronk Serb]

I didnt mean to offend you and for that i apoligize. But a person who kills innocent people doesnt deserve to live so that they can do it again.

That's why man made cells.

[johndoe1112]

lol i keep seeing people say it cost too much to execute someone but a bullet right behind the ear only cost about a dollar

[Sugaree]

lol i keep seeing people say it cost too much to execute someone but a bullet right behind the ear only cost about a dollar

http://i.imgur.com/cWgwzIy.png

[johndoe1112]

well arn't you funny but im serious its not that much to execute someone. why would you put that much money on someone who your just going to end up killing.

[EddietheZombie]

Oh heck yeah! Murderers, rapists, child abusers and molesters. They all deserve the death penalty.

I didnt even bother reading the whole thread, i saw this and this would be my answer.

Eddie out.

[thatcountrykid]

That's why man made cells.

But why spend the money to keep the monster who killed innocents alive. Spend 5 bucks on a rope and hang em. I doesnt need to be 1million dollars for lethal ingection.

[Stronk Serb]

But why spend the money to keep the monster who killed innocents alive. Spend 5 bucks on a rope and hang em. I doesnt need to be 1million dollars for lethal ingection.

Doing two wrongs doesn't make a right. If we go by that logic, the executioners should be charged with murder and executed, especially if the executed war innocent.

[thatcountrykid]

Doing two wrongs doesn't make a right. If we go by that logic, the executioners should be charged with murder and executed, especially if the executed war innocent.

No because the executed where given their trial and found guilty by a jury of their peers.

[Harry Smith]

You know you peoe can give me the love and respect crap but you would not feel the same when it happens.

And to answer your question the lose the right to life when they take someone elses for no reason at all. You know the bible even uses death as punishment.

Oh so because the Bible says it then it must be enacted across the land, the Bible also says you shouldn't graze two types of cattle in the same field or wear different types of Fabric. This is the 21st Century we shouldn't use a holy book to set in place laws and regulations which will send people to their death


You didnt use my whole sentence. I said that the death penalty is cheaper than keeping the alive in jail for seventy years paying medical. And james holmes wasnt so crazy that he put a bomb in his apartment for police ir to use flashbang grenades in the theater. He deserves to die. Would you want hitler
Alive?


They received their trial and where found guilty by a jury Of their peers. Due process.

I would want Hitler alive- but he killed himself didn't he so there's no point discussing something that happened 70 years ago when innocent people are being executed. It's worrying how much faith you have a in a jury system- you do know that Juries get it wrong right? Do you accept that innocent people would be killed if the death Penalty is used?

I know it wont drop the murder rate but is sure is cheaper than keeping them alive for seventy years.

There's your full sentence, you admit that it won't lower the crime rate and the whole point of justice should be to reduce the likelihood of it happening again and allowing people to reform within life.

I also hate how personal everyone makes it- what would you do if your mum was killed blah blah blah- the law isn't about me or my family- we should have complete equality before the law- it doesn't matter who the murder victim is.

You've also failed to mention about the whole illegality of the death Penalty within the US constitution

[tedheath]

Death isn't a full sentence, if someone is deemed to be worthy of a death sentence then they should be jailed for life as then they have to live with their crime, while death releases then from this punishment. Also, the bible cannot be applied because surely using religion as a basis for law is wrong and a form of discrimination as it unfairly discriminates against those who do not follow that religion

[Sugaree]

I didnt even bother reading the whole thread

Then you shouldn't have bothered responding.

[The Trendy Wolf]

I would have to say no for this one.

For example, if someone commits murder and they are sentenced to the death penalty, why is it any better that they are killed as a result of their crimes? It doesn't seem like the ideal way to punish someone for anything, as it only says that killing is just if the life of the criminal is of lesser or equal worth compared to the crime. And who could put a value on a human life?

But why spend the money to keep the monster who killed innocents alive. Spend 5 bucks on a rope and hang em. I doesnt need to be 1million dollars for lethal ingection.

Monsters? That seems like a very stereotypical view of criminals, to be honest. Treat them as humans, just as you would want to be treated.

[Vlerchan]

well arn't you funny but im serious its not that much to execute someone. why would you put that much money on someone who your just going to end up killing.
You do realise that the huge bills stem from the actual case - and subsequent appeals process - itself and not the actual execution? You could put a bullet through the guilty-man's head and the costs are still going to be incredibly high. Here's another source to for everyone to read - the internet is literally plastered with this information. (http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html)

I'll add now that I'd be against the use of firing squads. It's quite simply inhumane.

No because the executed where given their trial and found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Third time:
An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

[Harry Smith]

You do realise that the huge bills stem from the actual case - and subsequent appeals process - itself and not the actual execution? You could put a bullet through the guilty-man's head and the costs are still going to be incredibly high. Here's another source to for everyone to read - the internet is literally plastered with this information. (http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html)

I'll add now that I'd be against the use of firing squads. It's quite simply inhumane.

I agree with all this, I just want to add that even if it was cheaper which it isn't that doesn't justify it's use within society- it would be cheaper for us to close down all schools but that doesn't justify it does it?

Issues such as death shouldn't be about cost- it should be about the fact it's immoral to give the courts such power over life and death. The death Penalty is illegal under both US and international law

[Moth]

Let's just say if my child had been hurt by someone I would want them to rot in a prison cell
If capital punishment is due, let me perform the act.

[thatcountrykid]

Monsters? That seems like a very stereotypical view of criminals, to be honest. Treat them as humans, just as you would want to be treated.

I will not treat a murder, a rapist, or child abuser as humans. They are not humans. They are monsters who dont deserve life.

[Sugaree]

I will not treat a murder, a rapist, or child abuser as humans. They are not humans. They are monsters who dont deserve life.

I still see that you have yet to answer one of my questions: Who or what made you, or people LIKE you, the judge of who lives and who dies? Do you not believe in remorse?

[The Trendy Wolf]

I will not treat a murder, a rapist, or child abuser as humans. They are not humans. They are monsters who dont deserve life.

It usually isn't healthy to judge people so rapidly because of their past.

[thatcountrykid]

I still see that you have yet to answer one of my questions: Who or what made you, or people LIKE you, the judge of who lives and who dies? Do you not believe in remorse?

No. No remorse. It is my right and my duty as a person to make sure that no one hurts an innocent and that those who do can never do it again.

[Sugaree]

No. No remorse. It is my right and my duty as a person to make sure that no one hurts an innocent and that those who do can never do it again.

Do you even know what remorse means? I'm not asking that to insult you; just reading your post over, I think you might have misunderstood.

Also, since when was it your right and duty to protect others? Your only duty and right is to protect yourself and your loved ones. If you find someone who can't protect themselves or doesn't have someone to protect them, get them to a service that WILL. It is not your job to be a nanny.

Also, if your intent is to make sure that people who DO harm innocent lives can never do it again, isn't the more LOGICAL answer to just put them in a locked cell for 24 hours a day? Surely that keeps them from ever doing anything other than staring at a ceiling.

[thatcountrykid]

Do you even know what remorse means? I'm not asking that to insult you; just reading your post over, I think you might have misunderstood.

Also, since when was it your right and duty to protect others? Your only duty and right is to protect yourself and your loved ones. If you find someone who can't protect themselves or doesn't have someone to protect them, get them to a service that WILL. It is not your job to be a nanny.

Also, if your intent is to make sure that people who DO harm innocent lives can never do it again, isn't the more LOGICAL answer to just put them in a locked cell for 24 hours a day? Surely that keeps them from ever doing anything other than staring at a ceiling.

Yes i understand what remorse means. It is my duty as a person to protect my love ones and innocents. Your telling me that if you saw some kid being molested you wouldnt help? You would just toss a phycologist card and say bye?

[Sugaree]

Yes i understand what remorse means. It is my duty as a person to protect my love ones and innocents. Your telling me that if you saw some kid being molested you wouldnt help? You would just toss a phycologist card and say bye?

Clearly I wouldn't do that. You misunderstood what I said. If I knew that child was being molested I would help. But what you're doing is going off assumption. You're assuming that everyone is a victim of something bad.

[thatcountrykid]

Clearly I wouldn't do that. You misunderstood what I said. If I knew that child was being molested I would help. But what you're doing is going off assumption. You're assuming that everyone is a victim of something bad.

Im not saying everyone is a victim. Im saying we need to keep them from making another victim.

[Stronk Serb]

No because the executed where given their trial and found guilty by a jury of their peers.

You do know that there is corruption in the law enforcement and justice system? The police fabricating evidence, bribed juries and judges... And the term 'found guilty' means that the judge and the jury are convinced that the suspect is guilty, you may never know for sure if he did it. In some of your posts, you said that murderers, rapists, molesters etc. don't deserve to live. When you say 'murderers', do you think that the executioners should be punished? They did kill and still are killing in most gruesome ways.

[thatcountrykid]

You do know that there is corruption in the law enforcement and justice system? The police fabricating evidence, bribed juries and judges... And the term 'found guilty' means that the judge and the jury are convinced that the suspect is guilty, you may never know for sure if he did it. In some of your posts, you said that murderers, rapists, molesters etc. don't deserve to live. When you say 'murderers', do you think that the executioners should be punished? They did kill and still are killing in most gruesome ways.

Some case police may have "fabricated" evidence. And just because a few people have their doubts about trial then we should just realease all inmates right?

And unfortunatly someone has to do the killing but at least the execution is killing people found guilty by trial and sentenced to death and not a crying child or an innocent woman.

[johndoe1112]

You do realise that the huge bills stem from the actual case - and subsequent appeals process - itself and not the actual execution? You could put a bullet through the guilty-man's head and the costs are still going to be incredibly high. Here's another source to for everyone to read - the internet is literally plastered with this information. (http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter.html)

I'll add now that I'd be against the use of firing squads. It's quite simply inhumane.


Third time:

you know what they don't need to be executed. i just need to find them after they get out of jail

[Harry Smith]

you know what they don't need to be executed. i just need to find them after they get out of jail

But then you would get placed in jail for murder or even in certain states sent to the electric chair.

This is the most stupid thing about this argument- it's just people wanting to extract mob rule esque lynchings on people- we have a justice system for a reason.

Anyone who is in favour of the Death Penalty I ask you this- Why is murder wrong?

[johndoe1112]

But then you would get placed in jail for murder or even in certain states sent to the electric chair.

This is the most stupid thing about this argument- it's just people wanting to extract mob rule esque lynchings on people- we have a justice system for a reason

Anyone who is in favour of the Death Penalty I ask you this- Why is murder wrong?

yeah but the justice system that you believe so much in fails and lets criminals walk the street and that is why i'm not pro death penalty but they do deserve there justice

[Harry Smith]

yeah but the justice system that you believe so much in fails and lets criminals walk the street and that is why i'm not pro death penalty but they do deserve there justice

Criminals have every right to walk the street once they've served their time in Jail and been assessed. The Justice system has it's shortcomings but it's much better than this vigilantism you seem to suggest

[Stronk Serb]

Some case police may have "fabricated" evidence. And just because a few people have their doubts about trial then we should just realease all inmates right?

And unfortunatly someone has to do the killing but at least the execution is killing people found guilty by trial and sentenced to death and not a crying child or an innocent woman.

The sentenced could be innocent. And no, nobody should be released because a 'few have their doubts'. They should have the right for a complaint and possibly be released. Not shot, killed, gassed, hanged or murdered in other gruesome ways by men who are no worse then the sentenced.

[thatcountrykid]

The sentenced could be innocent. And no, nobody should be released because a 'few have their doubts'. They should have the right for a complaint and possibly be released. Not shot, killed, gassed, hanged or murdered in other gruesome ways by men who are no worse then the sentenced.

So by that logic doctors who unplug life support are murderers?

[Harry Smith]

So by that logic doctors who unplug life support are murderers?

It's ironic to have a lecture on logic from someone who punishes killing by killing isn't it?

I'll ask again- what's wrong with murder?

[Vlerchan]

I could repeat my argument about how we shouldn't allow emotion to overrule logic and fairness in our justice systems, and continue imposing passionate 'justice' on those found guilty by the courts. Though I think it'll be much easier - and much less time consuming - to resort to Logical Fallacy bashing.

Your telling me that if you saw some kid being molested you wouldnt help? You would just toss a phycologist card and say bye?
Your arguments are suffering from argumentum ad passiones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) big time here. Do you actually have an argument beside 'I find these men to be evil beyond repair and hence should have the right to terminate their lives'?

[thatcountrykid]

It's ironic to have a lecture on logic from someone who punishes killing by killing isn't it?

I'll ask again- what's wrong with murder?

Think about that question. Are you really asking that? How about you answer that yourself.


I could repeat my argument about how we shouldn't allow emotion to overrule logic and fairness in our justice systems, and continue imposing passionate 'justice' on those found guilty by the courts. Though I think it'll be much easier - and much less time consuming - to resort to Logical Fallacy bashing.


Your arguments are suffering from argumentum ad passiones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) big time here. Do you actually have an argument beside 'I find these men to be evil beyond repair and hence should have the right to terminate their lives'?

Why should they live? Kill them so that they have no
Chance to kill more innocents.

[Vlerchan]

Why should they live? Kill them so that they
have no
Chance to kill more innocents.
This is (sorta - I'll admit it isn't as bad as the others) another argumentum ad passiones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) but I'll take the bait: convicted murderers can't murder any more innocents in jail. I would have thought that would be rather obvious, though I guess not. I understand that murderers may be released in time - i.e., like 25 years down the line - but that's only after they've been assessed and thought capable of engaging lawfully in society again. If one wants to ensure that an offender never commits again then one simply keeps him in jail - which is a) cheaper and b) easier to reverse in the case of a mistake - as opposed to executing him. Whether all offenders should be kept in jails indefinitely is another debate.

Now that I've got your attention I'll repeat my previous point which has yet to receive a response: The continued use of the death penalty will inevitably result in the execution of innocent individuals. This is unrectifiable and entirely unacceptable.

[thatcountrykid]

This is (sorta - I'll admit it isn't as bad as the others) another argumentum ad passiones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) but I'll take the bait: convicted murderers can't murder any more innocents in jail. I would have thought that would be rather obvious, though I guess not. I understand that murderers may be released in time - i.e., like 25 years down the line - but that's only after they've been assessed and thought capable of engaging lawfully in society again. If one wants to ensure that an offender never commits again then one simply keeps him in jail - which is a) cheaper and b) easier to reverse in the case of a mistake - as opposed to executing him. Whether all offenders should be kept in jails indefinitely is another debate.

Now that I've got your attention I'll repeat my previous point which has yet to receive a response: The continued use of the death penalty will inevitably result in the execution of innocent individuals. This is unrectifiable and entirely unacceptable.

And the continued release of murderers or rapists will eventually wind up
With those people repeating those crimes. Theres a thing called turn around rate.

[Stronk Serb]

So by that logic doctors who unplug life support are murderers?

I haven't heard of doctors doing that here. Probably because we have free healthcare. If they did it because the insurance didn't want to cover it, then the insurance company is responsible, if the doctor did it with an intent of murder, it is the doctor's fault. If the doctor had the patient's consent to do it because nothing else could be done, then the patient wanted to die, so it's not the doctor's fault. And my logic doesn't involve killing a murderer to show him murder is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why every criminal goes to a correctional facility? So that he can try to correct the wrongs he has done to society, not to be murdered by barbarians who usually enjoy it.

[Harry Smith]

Think about that question. Are you really asking that? How about you answer that yourself.

I'm asking to show the whole fallacy of the death Penalty, I know why murder is wrong but do you? Why is murder wrong?

[Vlerchan]

And the continued release of murderers or rapists will eventually wind up
With those people repeating those crimes. Theres a thing called turn around rate.
I actually addressed this point in the post you quoted. Again: it's possible to imprison offenders indefinitely and as such keep them off the streets indefinitely without executing them. I find it a lot more preferable an alternative than execution because, again: a) it's cheaper on the taxpayer and b) the sentence is reversible if new evidence comes to light. I'd be interested in the statistics behind these 'turn around' rates, however - if you could produce them that would be great.

I'm still looking for an actual response to this argument: "the continued use of the death penalty will inevitably result in the execution of innocent individuals. This is unrectifiable and entirely unacceptable." I haven't forgotten.

[shotgungirl]

I think after being in the military for a little while, my whole opinion on what people think they have a "right" to and "deserve" has changed drastically. People know the laws. If you wanna be the idiot that goes and murders someone KNOWING it is illegal, then you pretty much set yourself up for whatever punishment the courts see fit. What makes you think that as a criminal you deserve any rights whatsoever when you took every bit of rights from an innocent human being? You think that someone who brutally sexually assaulted a young child deserves any rights at all? No. They are animals. They are scum.

As a victim of rape, nothing would make me happier than taking my switchblade knife and cutting those guys' dicks off. If I had to fucking suffer, so should they.

I'm all about the death penalty. Should someone who robbed a convenient store be killed? Hell no. But major crimes? Hell yeah.

And for that matter, it shouldn't be painless. It shouldn't be easy for them. It should hurt like hell. I don't know how bad those chemicals they pump into the body hurt (or how much they cost for that matter), but I know a bullet wound and a rope around your neck would do just fine.

[thatcountrykid]

I haven't heard of doctors doing that here. Probably because we have free healthcare. If they did it because the insurance didn't want to cover it, then the insurance company is responsible, if the doctor did it with an intent of murder, it is the doctor's fault. If the doctor had the patient's consent to do it because nothing else could be done, then the patient wanted to die, so it's not the doctor's fault. And my logic doesn't involve killing a murderer to show him murder is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why every criminal goes to a correctional facility? So that he can try to correct the wrongs he has done to society, not to be murdered by barbarians who usually enjoy it.

Well its the doctors job to do such things just like an executioner. The executioner is doing what he is assigned to do.

I'm asking to show the whole fallacy of the death Penalty, I know why murder is wrong but do you? Why is murder wrong?

Murder is wrong because it is the termination of an innocent life and those who murder deserve no right to live for what they did. They made their choice and because of that choice they should be put before a firing squad.

I actually addressed this point in the post you quoted. Again: it's possible to imprison offenders indefinitely and as such keep them off the streets indefinitely without executing them. I find it a lot more preferable an alternative than execution because, again: a) it's cheaper on the taxpayer and b) the sentence is reversible if new evidence comes to light. I'd be interested in the statistics behind these 'turn around' rates, however - if you could produce them that would be great.

I'm still looking for an actual response to this argument: "the continued use of the death penalty will inevitably result in the execution of innocent individuals. This is unrectifiable and entirely unacceptable." I haven't forgotten.

Yeah i agree it may happen but lets just make sure it doesnt yeah?

I think after being in the military for a little while, my whole opinion on what people think they have a "right" to and "deserve" has changed drastically. People know the laws. If you wanna be the idiot that goes and murders someone KNOWING it is illegal, then you pretty much set yourself up for whatever punishment the courts see fit. What makes you think that as a criminal you deserve any rights whatsoever when you took every bit of rights from an innocent human being? You think that someone who brutally sexually assaulted a young child deserves any rights at all? No. They are animals. They are scum.

As a victim of rape, nothing would make me happier than taking my switchblade knife and cutting those guys' dicks off. If I had to fucking suffer, so should they.

I'm all about the death penalty. Should someone who robbed a convenient store be killed? Hell no. But major crimes? Hell yeah.

And for that matter, it shouldn't be painless. It shouldn't be easy for them. It should hurt like hell. I don't know how bad those chemicals they pump into the body hurt (or how much they cost for that matter), but I know a bullet wound and a rope around your neck would do just fine.

Exactly thank you! They deserve no right to life for what they do.

[britishboy]

Well its the doctors job to do such things just like an executioner. The executioner is doing what he is assigned to do.


Very true you can get around the problem vy giving half tge firing squad live rounds and half blanks so nobody knows whi killed who.


Murder is wrong because it is the termination of an innocent life and those who murder deserve no right to live for what they did. They made their choice and because of that choice they should be put before a firing squad.


I do agree very much and share you passion however I am doubtful because for example Britain actually removed the death penalty because of an innocent prisoner.

[thatcountrykid]

Very true you can get around the problem vy giving half tge firing squad live rounds and half blanks so nobody knows whi killed who.



I do agree very much and share you passion however I am doubtful because for example Britain actually removed the death penalty because of an innocent prisoner.

Mistakes will be made but it cannot stop every thing.

[Harry Smith]

Very true you can get around the problem vy giving half tge firing squad live rounds and half blanks so nobody knows whi killed who.



I do agree very much and share you passion however I am doubtful because for example Britain actually removed the death penalty because of an innocent prisoner.

The firing squad situation doesn't change anything, all the people still have the guilt of knowing that they contributed to killing someone- it's like saying that a lynch mob removes the guilt because only one person tied the noose. The passion of one's argument shouldn't have any impact on a legal debate- the court system is about equality not about populist draconian punishment which achieves nothing

It's extremely well documented just how harrowing it is for the executioner http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/death-penalty-former-executioner-jerry-givens

Mistakes will be made but it cannot stop every thing.

Mistakes? That's the biggest understatement of the year, it's sickening to hear it referred to as mistake- that makes it trivial. I wonder who you would feel if you were sitting in death row knowing you had done nothing wrong waiting to die.

How can you be so ignorant to happily accept people getting killed for no-reason, every one has the right to live no matter what they've done. As it was said before once the state has the power to execute you for 'murder' then it leads further and further down the road of government oppression. When does it stop? The majority of countries that use the death Penalty only ever evolve the power- first it's murder, then it's rape then it's treason and the spiral continues.

I think after being in the military for a little while, my whole opinion on what people think they have a "right" to and "deserve" has changed drastically. People know the laws. If you wanna be the idiot that goes and murders someone KNOWING it is illegal, then you pretty much set yourself up for whatever punishment the courts see fit. What makes you think that as a criminal you deserve any rights whatsoever when you took every bit of rights from an innocent human being? You think that someone who brutally sexually assaulted a young child deserves any rights at all? No. They are animals. They are scum.

As a victim of rape, nothing would make me happier than taking my switchblade knife and cutting those guys' dicks off. If I had to fucking suffer, so should they.

I'm all about the death penalty. Should someone who robbed a convenient store be killed? Hell no. But major crimes? Hell yeah.

And for that matter, it shouldn't be painless. It shouldn't be easy for them. It should hurt like hell. I don't know how bad those chemicals they pump into the body hurt (or how much they cost for that matter), but I know a bullet wound and a rope around your neck would do just fine.

As someone who claims to of served in the armed forces I would of hoped that you would of at least heard of the Geneva convention and the idea that everyone across the world has something called 'universal human rights' both in the battlefield and at home. You can't take away someone's human rights, that's not legally possible despite what the United States Military may think. This is a serious matter- it's not as simple as saying 'he took away my rights so he must die' we live in a society where no matter what crime you commit or what life you lead you have the eternal right to live

for whatever punishment the courts see fit

I've committed a crime before- I've pissed in the street- does that give the court the right to kill me? No it doesn't, the court should be accountable to the public and it shouldn't be given such immense power. Earlier in your argument you state that someone shouldn't be killed for robbing a shop but then you say that the court should have the power to kill them.. what's next?

[Vlerchan]

Yeah i agree it may happen but lets just make sure it doesnt yeah?
It's responses like this that make me wonder whether my earlier posts were even read. The problem is that we can't just 'make sure it doesn't happen'; regardless of how strong the evidence is there will (nearly) always be some fraction of a doubt as to whether an individual is guilty or not. As I said earlier: "An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt; Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary." The continued use of capital punishment in the American legal system makes the execution of an innocent something inevitable - and, I'll add, is completely irreversible.

You've presented absolutely no rational argument for the continuation of capital punishment over the last five pages: the punishment itself is neither economical, fair, moral, necessary, a reasonable deterrent to future crime, and nor does it pose any benefit to society as a whole, and you've presented no evidence to the contrary. Your entire argument has effectively hinged on: "I believe some men to be irredeemably evil and as such should have the power to terminate their very lives" - with some argumentum ad passiones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) thrown in. I'll repeat one last time: emotion should not overrule logic in a court of law and these continued administrations of passionate 'justice' result in just that. The belief that one must suffer to make an individual feel better is not only an unacceptable approach to justice but an immoral and irrational approach to absolutely everything.

[Stronk Serb]

Well its the doctors job to do such things just like an executioner. The executioner is doing what he is assigned to do.



Murder is wrong because it is the termination of an innocent life and those who murder deserve no right to live for what they did. They made their choice and because of that choice they should be put before a firing squad.

A doctor's job is to heal, not kill. Actually read my post for a change. Executions are nerve racking for some executioners, while some enjoy it. Many executioners deserve death because they killed innocents, imagine you getting executed tommorrow for a crime you didn't commit. You are contradicting yourself. Who are you to decide who lives and who dies?

[shotgungirl]

As someone who claims to of served in the armed forces I would of hoped that you would of at least heard of the Geneva convention and the idea that everyone across the world has something called 'universal human rights' both in the battlefield and at home. You can't take away someone's human rights, that's not legally possible despite what the United States Military may think. This is a serious matter- it's not as simple as saying 'he took away my rights so he must die' we live in a society where no matter what crime you commit or what life you lead you have the eternal right to live



I've committed a crime before- I've pissed in the street- does that give the court the right to kill me? No it doesn't, the court should be accountable to the public and it shouldn't be given such immense power. Earlier in your argument you state that someone shouldn't be killed for robbing a shop but then you say that the court should have the power to kill them.. what's next?
**still serving.

People having an eternal right to live is your personal opinion. I don't think that's the case. Laws are not made so people can pussyfoot around them and sit in a jail cell with no responsibilities whatsoever, watch TV all day, free food, etc. I really don't have a problem with a kind of population control, and my opinion of capital punishment will never change because I literally see people that rape, murder the innocent, etc. as lower than human.



What I was saying about that was petty crimes can be handled. Those people can change, and I'm sure that there are some that never do it again after they have served their time. Repeat offenders for major crimes do not deserve rights. At all. And I'm pretty firm on that stance. I think if people want to act like animals then they should be treated like animals.

[Vlerchan]

People having an eternal right to live is your personal opinion.
I'll add now: It's not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life)

[shotgungirl]

I'll add now: It's not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life)

Awesome. Wikipedia link. Cool. Great source.

What I am saying is that I, personally, don't think people deserve that right. I really don't care what some article has to say about it.

[Harry Smith]

**still serving.

People having an eternal right to live is your personal opinion. I don't think that's the case. Laws are not made so people can pussyfoot around them and sit in a jail cell with no responsibilities whatsoever, watch TV all day, free food, etc. I really don't have a problem with a kind of population control, and my opinion of capital punishment will never change because I literally see people that rape, murder the innocent, etc. as lower than human.



What I was saying about that was petty crimes can be handled. Those people can change, and I'm sure that there are some that never do it again after they have served their time. Repeat offenders for major crimes do not deserve rights. At all. And I'm pretty firm on that stance. I think if people want to act like animals then they should be treated like animals.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

It's not my opinion, it's the ruling on the universal declaration of human rights.

Ah yes Jail is so easy ins't it, it's very easy to sit on the sofa and tut about how these criminals have it easy when in fact there every move is watched, they're under the constant threat of attack/raped and they're movement is ligated. I support the use of Jails but I would never claim that it's nice to be in jail- its hell.

Repeat offenders for major crimes do not deserve rights

I'm sorry but who the fuck are you to tell people which rights they deserve?

It's not a question of picking the people who are nice and moral-everyone has the same rights under the law and that simply cannot be changed, any attempt to change that would lead to Authoritarian dictatorship something I'm sure you don't support.

So the whole basis of your argument is- let's treat people like animals because they act like animals... that sounds nice and logical. You do realize that by holding such a idiotic view you yourself could be seen as animalistic. It's a bit of a paradox isn't it?

Nelson Mandela is the prime example of a repeat offender, by your logic he should of had his very rights taken away. MLK was a repeat offender the list goes on. You can't simply strip people of their human rights- that leads to a holocaust

[Vlerchan]

Awesome. Wikipedia link. Cool. Great source.
Wikipedia is convenient and its use doesn't involve me scrolling through what are usually lengthy texts for quotations.

o The UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3): (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." This bill has been adopted - signed and ratified - by the US.

o International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 6.1): (http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx) "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." This bill has been adopted - signed and ratified - by the US.

o Declaration of Independence: (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What I am saying is that I, personally, don't think people deserve that right. I really don't care what some article has to say about it.Unfortunately, when discussing the legality of a governments actions we rely on the current laws in place as opposed to personal opinions. It's brilliant if you want to debate the stripping of American citizens of their precious and 'inalienable' right to life, but you can't argue for Capital Punishment on a currently unexisting premise. I'll add now that 'inalienable' would lead me to believe that it will be an always unexisting premise.

[thatcountrykid]

It's responses like this that make me wonder whether my earlier posts were even read. The problem is that we can't just 'make sure it doesn't happen'; regardless of how strong the evidence is there will (nearly) always be some fraction of a doubt as to whether an individual is guilty or not. As I said earlier: "An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt; Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary." The continued use of capital punishment in the American legal system makes the execution of an innocent something inevitable - and, I'll add, is completely irreversible.

You've presented absolutely no rational argument for the continuation of capital punishment over the last five pages: the punishment itself is neither economical, fair, moral, necessary, a reasonable deterrent to future crime, and nor does it pose any benefit to society as a whole, and you've presented no evidence to the contrary. Your entire argument has effectively hinged on: "I believe some men to be irredeemably evil and as such should have the power to terminate their very lives" - with some argumentum ad passiones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) thrown in. I'll repeat one last time: emotion should not overrule logic in a court of law and these continued administrations of passionate 'justice' result in just that. The belief that one must suffer to make an individual feel better is not only an unacceptable approach to justice but an immoral and irrational approach to absolutely everything.

Why let these mosters live? Would you let bin laden live? Would you let
Hitler live? They're people right? That means they have a right to live?


A doctor's job is to heal, not kill. Actually read my post for a change. Executions are nerve racking for some executioners, while some enjoy it. Many executioners deserve death because they killed innocents, imagine you getting executed tommorrow for a crime you didn't commit. You are contradicting yourself. Who are you to decide who lives and who dies?

Ah but you just contradicted your self. You just said those who kill innocents deserve to dye yeah? And i decide to get revenge for Tthedeath of innocence. Lifes ugly and you cant go through it being acceptin of everyone.

[Sugaree]

And i decide to get revenge for Tthedeath of innocence. Lifes ugly and you cant go through it being acceptin of everyone.

But WHO or WHAT made you this "decider of revenge"? Certainly not God.

[thatcountrykid]

But WHO or WHAT made you this "decider of revenge"? Certainly not God.

They dd when they decide to hurt and rape a child or kill an innovent person.

[Sugaree]

They dd when they decide to hurt and rape a child or kill an innovent person.

No, they didn't. They did not command you to act as a holy warrior on a crusade. Stop acting like one.

[HideInPlainSight]

What I was saying about that was petty crimes can be handled. Those people can change, and I'm sure that there are some that never do it again after they have served their time. Repeat offenders for major crimes do not deserve rights. At all. And I'm pretty firm on that stance. I think if people want to act like animals then they should be treated like animals.

Okay, first, can we -not- do this? Compare murderers and rapists to animals? They aren't. They are horrid, yes, but that doesn't make them animals. Being a human being makes them animals, as with everyone. _-_
Moving on to the actual topic, though... If they do these things, why do they deserve to get off easy? The death penalty allows the guilty an easy way out, so that they don't really have to face what they've done, as well as killing off the wrongly-accused. If a neighbour of mine went out and mass-murdered people, I'd wanna see their ass suffer! I wouldn't want them being allowed to escape their crimes, I'd want to see them rot in jail. I would want them to have to spend the rest of their life stuck in a tiny isolated cell with nothing but their thoughts. Let what they've done drive them crazy until they keel over. When somebody commits crimes like that, they don't deserve to get out, they deserve to stew on it until they feel guilty, until they realise what they've done. And even if they don't, they still shouldn't be allowed out. They should truly pay for their crimes. They know what is okay and what isn't, and they choose to do it anyway. They need to do their time and face their crimes, not have chemicals pumped into them and be allowed to go without penalty.
And what of the executioners? Should they really have to go through all of that psychological torture? The dying words and screams of the people they are forced to murder? Knowing that their job, what they have to do to feed their families, is taking them to a place where they are no better than the vile creatures that they exterminate? If a monster comes creeping up from under your bed, would you turn men to monsters as well to stop them? If we allow ourselves to stoop to that level, what makes us any different? The doctors who pull the plug, the guards that lead them to their chair, the executioner that drops the chair, the judge that makes the call... the people who sit at home making guesses on these people's lives... We would be so much better with out it, look at what it has made us!
We call for justice, for rectitude, and then we murder the murderers. We spend all this time trying to find the moral high ground, then jump off the edge until we are just as low as them. We spend all this time trying to find our morals, figure what we think is right, and for what? To have a better view as we throw it all away?
If we can find no better way to deal with them than committing the same thing we are condemning them for, then why do we feel we retain the right to do so in the first place? Should we really allow those just as bad as them to choose their fate, to run our courtrooms?
Yes, they are horrendous people, but that doesn't mean that we have to be.

[darthearth]

I don't support the death penalty because I don't believe it is right for society to kill someone. If we let all these non-violent "drug offenders" go imagine the room (and funds) we would have in our prison system for life imprisonment.

[Harry Smith]

Why let these mosters live? Would you let bin laden live? Would you let
Hitler live? They're people right? That means they have a right to live?

you cant go through it being acceptin of everyone.

Telling me there monsters doesn't change anything in the legal system.

Should George Bush and Tony Blair be executed for war crimes? Should the commanders of Guatanamo bay be killed? Would you execute the people who trained Bin Laden in the 1980's?

I know you think your smart by bringing up these 'villains' but it just makes you like a jingoistic bloodthirsty idiot

Your whole logic depends on historical figures who are now dead... you fail to recognize the innocent predominately Black youths who are currently waiting on death row or worse been executed despite being innocent of their crimes.

Your argument has so far been...
1) The Bible says it
2) It's cheap (although this has been disproved)
3) People are bad

you cant go through it being acceptin of everyone

Why not? We should accept everyone on this planet as a human being

[Vlerchan]

Why let these mosters live? Would you let bin laden live? Would you let
Hitler live? They're people right? That means they have a right to live?
Yes, actually. I would allow them to continue living - in my maximum security prison, that is. That's not just because the UN Declaration of Human Rights gives them the Right to Life, but because I believe it's wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on another human being regardless of actions or circumstances, as well as it being a simply illogical approach to such issues. However, I've tried to refrain from bringing my own morality into the argument thus far because I know it has no chance of swaying you - though rationality doesn't seem to be faring much better, I might add.

This argument - what about Osama?! - is only serving to drill my earlier point home. Your entire argument is based around the apparent need to inflict suffering on individuals who've committed actions you find irreparably evil. You make no attempt to logically justify this need though do make plenty of emotional (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal) appeals and assertions (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) in place.

[Stronk Serb]

Ah but you just contradicted your self. You just said those who kill innocents deserve to dye yeah? And i decide to get revenge for Tthedeath of innocence. Lifes ugly and you cant go through it being acceptin of everyone.

I was merely making an example by your logic. So, you got framed for murder, and are on Death Row. By your logic, you should die, because the court and the jury found you guilty. But if it's later found out that you are innocent, the executioners should be killed? Why not just lock you up so you can make a complaint and after gathering evidence, go home free. You are not Perun, nor Dažbog, nor God, nor Jesus, nor Yahve (spelled the word for the Jewish god in Serbian), nor Allah (assuming those exist) to decide who dies. I assume that you are Christian, and by the New Testament, killing is a sin. No matter why it's done. You kill someone to show everyone that murder is wrong? Well, you are a murderer and should be killed, by your logic.

[thatcountrykid]

I was merely making an example by your logic. So, you got framed for murder, and are on Death Row. By your logic, you should die, because the court and the jury found you guilty. But if it's later found out that you are innocent, the executioners should be killed? Why not just lock you up so you can make a complaint and after gathering evidence, go home free. You are not Perun, nor Dažbog, nor God, nor Jesus, nor Yahve (spelled the word for the Jewish god in Serbian), nor Allah (assuming those exist) to decide who dies. I assume that you are Christian, and by the New Testament, killing is a sin. No matter why it's done. You kill someone to show everyone that murder is wrong? Well, you are a murderer and should be killed, by your logic.

No i wouldnt kill the executioner because they were just doing their job. There are case where killing is necesarry and i honestly dont care what the bible says.

[Stronk Serb]

No i wouldnt kill the executioner because they were just doing their job. There are case where killing is necesarry and i honestly dont care what the bible says.

But the executioner killed the innocent! He must die! He took an innocent life! The mob must lynch him! The death penalty is useless. People can repent.

[johndoe1112]

But the executioner killed the innocent! He must die! He took an innocent life! The mob must lynch him! The death penalty is useless. People can repent.

in a firing squad there is 4 people and only one of the guns is loaded the rest have blacks so there nobody will know who pulled the trigger

[thatcountrykid]

Yes, actually. I would allow them to continue living - in my maximum security prison, that is. That's not just because the UN Declaration of Human Rights gives them the Right to Life, but because I believe it's wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on another human being regardless of actions or circumstances, as well as it being a simply illogical approach to such issues. However, I've tried to refrain from bringing my own morality into the argument thus far because I know it has no chance of swaying you - though rationality doesn't seem to be faring much better, I might add.

This argument - what about Osama?! - is only serving to drill my earlier point home. Your entire argument is based around the apparent need to inflict suffering on individuals who've committed actions you find irreparably evil. You make no attempt to logically justify this need though do make plenty of emotional (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal) appeals and assertions (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) in place.

I honestley dont care what the UN say and it's my personal beleif that it should e disbanded. But any way back on topic. ARE YOU FRICKIN KIDDING ME!?! Hitler killed six million people in his camps and you would let him live? Bin laden lead the group that killed thousands of people in multiple nations and you would lethim live? Did you know an infant was killed at the pentagon? Do you know how many firefighters, police, and civilians were killed at the towers. But you would let the man who organized all of that and let him live because he has a "right to live?" Tell me does he have a right to kill innocents?

But the executioner killed the innocent! He must die! He took an innocent life! The mob must lynch him! The death penalty is useless. People can repent.

The person he killed was found guilty in a court of law. He did not choose for them to die. He didi his job that somebody has to do. Murderers and rapist are never sorry for what they did. They would neer have done it if they were sorry.


-Merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Harry Smith]

I honestley dont care what the UN say and it's my personal beleif that it should e disbanded. But any way back on topic. ARE YOU FRICKIN KIDDING ME!?! Hitler killed six million people in his camps and you would let him live? Bin laden lead the group that killed thousands of people in multiple nations and you would lethim live? Did you know an infant was killed at the pentagon? Do you know how many firefighters, police, and civilians were killed at the towers. But you would let the man who organized all of that and let him live because he has a "right to live?" Tell me does he have a right to kill innocents?

Who trained Bin Laden and have him his funding in the 1980's... oh yeah the CIA- by your legal argument they should be guilty of conspiracy to murder. America have aided and funded terrorism in Cuba for the last 50 years but when the US does it it's fine

T. Murderers and rapist are never sorry for what they did. .

That's simply a lie... your just portraying your whole argument as some sort of bloodthirsty quest, we're not in the 1920's anymore we don't need to lynch and demonize everyone

[Vlerchan]

#Emotional Appeal. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal)
Actually, if you read what I wrote you'd realise that I was against executing both Hitler and Bin Laden primarily on moral grounds as opposed to legal grounds - though I do believe it is correct procedure to follow the established laws as adopted by the US, too. They also both don't have the right to kill though which is why I also made it clear in my previous post that I would support moving them to a maximum security prison. Can you address my argument now - you've avoided most of it for the last while.

Aside: Also, pointing out exceptional individuals - one of which committed acts outside of the jurisdiction of American law - isn't a particularly solid case for the continuance of the death penalty.

[tovaris]

There should be NO death penalty!
Never!

[thatcountrykid]

Actually, if you read what I wrote you'd realise that I was against executing both Hitler and Bin Laden primarily on moral grounds as opposed to legal grounds - though I do believe it is correct procedure to follow the established laws as adopted by the US, too. They also both don't have the right to kill though which is why I also made it clear in my previous post that I would support moving them to a maximum security prison. Can you address my argument now - you've avoided most of it for the last while.

Aside: Also, pointing out exceptional individuals - one of which committed acts outside of the jurisdiction of American law - isn't a particularly solid case for the continuance of the death penalty.

There comes times in lufe where where you have to lose what morales you have and do what needs to be done.

And since nobody was taking any real action against hitler or bin laden, America did. I'm also gonna mention hitlers alliance with japan who attacked America but... This is off topic.

[Sugaree]

There comes times in lufe where where you have to lose what morales you have and do what needs to be done.

Yeah, obviously there comes a time in life where I can just say "Fuck morals!" and go out and kill someone just because I think they're a danger to society at large. That argument makes no sense.

[glad0s]

There comes times in lufe where where you have to lose what morales you have and do what needs to be done.

life*
As you will probably defend your statement by saying "death penalty", what other situations in life prompt you to forget your morals in order to get something done? Are these actions beneficial to mankind? I'm curious.


And since nobody was taking any real action against hitler or bin laden,
Whoa, whoa, whoa there cowboy. There were many attempts to assassinate/capture Hitler and bin Laden, and not just by the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Previous_attempts_to_capture_or_kill_bin_Laden [A team of Libyans]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

[thatcountrykid]

Yeah, obviously there comes a time in life where I can just say "Fuck morals!" and go out and kill someone just because I think they're a danger to society at large. That argument makes no sense.

Your twisting what im saying. Im saying that there are times in life that you have to let go of your morals. Im not saying to go out doin meth and raping people. Im saying that you can be all sunshine and friendship in this work. You fight fire with fire.

life*
As you will probably defend your statement by saying "death penalty", what other situations in life prompt you to forget your morals in order to get something done? Are these actions beneficial to mankind? I'm curious.



Whoa, whoa, whoa there cowboy. There were many attempts to assassinate/capture Hitler and bin Laden, and not just by the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Previous_attempts_to_capture_or_kill_bin_Laden [A team of Libyans]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

You might find fighting wrong but when somebody is hurting you or your family you fight. You cant go through this world holding on to your morales because one day it will mean your life ir the life of your family.

[Harry Smith]

Your twisting what im saying. Im saying that there are times in life that you have to let go of your morals. Im not saying to go out doin meth and raping people. Im saying that you can be all sunshine and friendship in this work. You fight fire with fire.



You might find fighting wrong but when somebody is hurting you or your family you fight. You cant go through this world holding on to your morales because one day it will mean your life ir the life of your family.

Your whole argument seems to be based on rhetoric' oh we need to fight fire with fire' blah blah blah.

Opposing the death penalty doesn't mean that your sunshine and rays to everyone- I still support long prison sentences and tough action to prevent crime. I just don't support killing as a means of crime prevention

[thatcountrykid]

Your whole argument seems to be based on rhetoric' oh we need to fight fire with fire' blah blah blah.

Opposing the death penalty doesn't mean that your sunshine and rays to everyone- I still support long prison sentences and tough action to prevent crime. I just don't support killing as a means of crime prevention

Its nor crime prevention. Its punishment.

[glad0s]

Its nor crime prevention. Its punishment.

It's punishment to receive a quick and painless death instead of living the rest of your life in a prison cell knowing you ended someone else's?

[thatcountrykid]

It's punishment to receive a quick and painless death instead of living the rest of your life in a prison cell knowing you ended someone else's?

You think their sorry or feel bad for what they did? They dont care. Put them in a cell for the rest of their life and they dont care. Put them on a death bed and they be screamin sorry only because they dont want to die.

[johndoe1112]

You think their sorry or feel bad for what they did? They dont care. Put them in a cell for the rest of their life and they dont care. Put them on a death bed and they be screamin sorry only because they dont want to die.

put them in solitary and don't feed them nobody will give a fuck about them

[thatcountrykid]

put them in solitary and don't feed them nobody will give a fuck about them

Might as well kill em

[glad0s]

Might as well kill em

What gives you the 'right' to kill that person? Your authoritative position in the field of law? I'd let nature take its course. If you kill a man who kills another man, are you not just as guilty? You won't "avenge" the person he killed by taking his life. However, since nature brought that killer into the world, it might as well take him out.

[johndoe1112]

What gives you the 'right' to kill that person? Your authoritative position in the field of law? I'd let nature take its course. If you kill a man who kills another man, are you not just as guilty? You won't "avenge" the person he killed by taking his life. However, since nature brought that killer into the world, it might as well take him out.

this was a triumph im making a note here huge sucess lol

[thatcountrykid]

What gives you the 'right' to kill that person? Your authoritative position in the field of law? I'd let nature take its course. If you kill a man who kills another man, are you not just as guilty? You won't "avenge" the person he killed by taking his life. However, since nature brought that killer into the world, it might as well take him out.

No j would not be just as guilty. An im not trying to avenge their death. Im tryig to make that killer live the same fear they gave their victim.

[glad0s]

I'm trying to make that killer live the same fear they gave their victim.

You're trying to make them live that fear? You're not controlling the execution, only the judgment that the accused deserves death sentence. Legally, the death row inmate is not supposed to receive any oppression or cruel treatment during death row (The Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Federation for Human Rights mentions that the states of California and Louisiana have legal obligations to "prevent and prohibit discrimination and torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.")

Secondly, their lethal injection is, as I have mentioned before, quick and painless. The inmate does not receive anything close to the torture they caused their victim, whose death they were unsure of and perhaps experienced torture far worse than a simple lethal injection.

[thatcountrykid]

You're trying to make them live that fear? You're not controlling the execution, only the judgment that the accused deserves death sentence. Legally, the death row inmate is not supposed to receive any oppression or cruel treatment during death row (The Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Federation for Human Rights mentions that the states of California and Louisiana have legal obligations to "prevent and prohibit discrimination and torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.")

Secondly, their lethal injection is, as I have mentioned before, quick and painless. The inmate does not receive anything close to the torture they caused their victim, whose death they were unsure of and perhaps experienced torture far worse than a simple lethal injection.

Thats why i say use a firing squad so they can see and feel it coming. Let them know the pain.

[glad0s]

Thats why i say use a firing squad so they can see and feel it coming. Let them know the pain.

That would, consequentially, violate the U.S. law defending the rights of death row inmates.

[thatcountrykid]

That would, consequentially, violate the U.S. law defending the rights of death row inmates.

And what law is that

[glad0s]

And what law is that

Habeas corpus, which is essentially a lawsuit that inmates can use (even after being sentenced to death row) to present new evidence, if given, to prove their innocence. Therefore, the courts must protect the rights of the death row inmates.

[thatcountrykid]

Habeas corpus, which is essentially a lawsuit that inmates can use (even after being sentenced to death row) to present new evidence, if given, to prove their innocence. Therefore, the courts must protect the rights of the death row inmates.

Hmm, well go ahead and allow them to do that until their death sentece is carried out.

[Vlerchan]

There comes times in lufe where where you have to lose what morales you have and do what needs to be done [...] Its nor crime prevention. Its punishment [...] You think their sorry or feel bad for what they did? They dont care. Put them in a cell for the rest of their life and they dont care. Put them on a death bed and they be screamin sorry only because they dont want to die [...] Might as well kill em [...] No j would not be just as guilty. An im not trying to avenge their death. Im tryig to make that killer live the same fear they gave their victim. [...] Thats why i say use a firing squad so they can see and feel it coming. Let them know the pain [...]
I don't think I could've proved this point better myself.

The oppositions whole 'argument' is simply that the inmate must suffer and nothing more. They recognise that it's immoral and unnecessary and illegal and irrational and doesn't deter future crime. I'm not going to continue arguing my point from this post onwards; I've reached the point now where I'm posting merely to increase my post count. I'm sure any impartial reader will have reached the conclusion that this 'justice' only serves to equate the legal system with the criminal and nothing more - as the opposition proved so much better than I possibly could have myself.

[Dark Hatred]

Should we have the death penalty, and if so, what is a crime punishable by death?


Sorry if this has already been posted as a question, but I didn't see it in the last two months of posts.

If you kill someone, you deserve the death penalty.

[Harry Smith]

If you kill someone, you deserve the death penalty.

I'm sorry but do you see the hypocrisy in that argument?

What does Killing someone solve? It's not cheaper, it doesn't deter crime and it's barbaric. Plus innocent people will die as a result of a death Penalty

[Dark Hatred]

I'm sorry but do you see the hypocrisy in that argument?

What does Killing someone solve? It's not cheaper, it doesn't deter crime and it's barbaric. Plus innocent people will die as a result of a death Penalty

The court systems can be wrong. The death penalty is used when it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that someone killed somebody. It is very uncommon for an innocent person to ACTUALLY be proven guilty...the media makes up lies and covers stuff up. The United States court system does a good job of making sure of this. The media, however, with all the liberal fat cats in the media make up lies, like the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman trial. The jury said that Zimmerman killed him in self defense, which is true. I could go on about this, but you see my point. The death penalty should be used. Would you rather them rot in prison?

[Vlerchan]

I couldn't help responding:

Firstly: You've read this entire thread, right? I don't want to be repeating myself.
The court systems can be wrong. The death penalty is used when it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that someone killed somebody.
An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary.

It is very uncommon for an innocent person to ACTUALLY be proven guilty...
There's 5 exonerations on average from Death Row every year. I've no idea how you define 'uncommon' but my defintion is synonymous with infrequent and translates roughly to: 'it doesn't happen a lot' - 5 exonerations per year seems a lot more than uncommon.

[Sugaree]

Would you rather them rot in prison?

Yes, because punishing death WITH death makes no sense logically.

[Dark Hatred]

Yes, because punishing death WITH death makes no sense logically.

Punishing death with death makes no logical sense? I respect everyones opinions, but how do you think that? It's LOGICAL to treat fire with fire, in my opinion.

[Dark Hatred]

I couldn't help responding:

Firstly: You've read this entire thread, right? I don't want to be repeating myself.




There's 5 exonerations on average from Death Row every year. I've no idea how you define 'uncommon' but my defintion is synonymous with infrequent and translates roughly to: 'it doesn't happen a lot' - 5 exonerations per year seems a lot more than uncommon.

Ok, so there are 5 exonerations every year (the exact average being 4.29). Do we know for sure they weren't guilty? Lies are powerful. Last year there were 3,124 people on death row in the US. A lot of innocent people go to jail, too. This is fairly uncommon.

Also, it provides fear to people committing crimes. If there was no death penalty, crime rates would be a lot higher. It strikes fear in people and makes crime less common. In other countries, even one small offense will have you shot to death by a firing squad that second. Imagine that! The US does not have it that bad when it comes to killing innocent people on death row.

[Sugaree]

Punishing death with death makes no logical sense? I respect everyones opinions, but how do you think that? It's LOGICAL to treat fire with fire, in my opinion.

And this is where this entire thread runs in circles. "Fight fire with fire!" you say. If that were the case, we'd all be trying to douse flames with...well, flames. You can't fight fire WITH fire, you fight it with water. You fight it with something that puts it out.

[Harry Smith]

. If there was no death penalty, crime rates would be a lot higher. .

That's not true, crimes are committed on impulse and through passion- you can add murder to that. Do you really think that a murderer would stop before he's about to kill someone and say wait I could get arrested and killed for that.

There's no evidence to prove that it lowers crime rates- in fact when Canada abolished the death Penalty their murder rate decreased by 40%.

According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers.

[SosbanFach]

Also, it provides fear to people committing crimes. If there was no death penalty, crime rates would be a lot higher. It strikes fear in people and makes crime less common. In other countries, even one small offense will have you shot to death by a firing squad that second. Imagine that! The US does not have it that bad when it comes to killing innocent people on death row.

There is actually little evidence for capital punishment as a deterrent. Based on my own brief research and statistics from the UNODC (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unodc.org%2Fdocuments%2Fdata-and-analysis%2Fstatistics%2Fcrime%2FHomicide_statistics2013.xls&ei=8r2oUt6uFaqu7AbB-IC4Cw&usg=AFQjCNG1pkYdMw3i1RLhqYvUHFZ7XA3yww&bvm=bv.57799294,d.ZGU) (That is an Excel spreadsheet, I cannot guarantee virus free, other disclaimer stuff) and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) (before you get a bee in your bonnet, this is not a university thesis, so I don't care), of the 10 countries with the lowest homicide rates, only two (Japan and Singapore) use capital punishment. One further (Brunei) has official legality of capital punishment, but has not used it since gaining independence in 1984. Meanwhile, of the countries in the top 10 for homicide rates, 6 use capital punishment (of a variety of methods) as a routine punishment in murder cases.

Furthermore, the EU average per year between 2008 and 2010 is 1.79 homicides per 100 000 (source (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/2/25/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police_Homicide%2C2004-2010_New.png)), in comparison to the United States average of 5.0 per 100 000 in the same period. In the EU, capital punishment is illegal for peace time use in every country, whereas in the US, 43 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year) executions were carried out in 2012. The only EU countries with a homicide rate greater than the US were Lithuania, with 7.70 per 100 000, and Estonia, with 5.57 per 100 000.

[Dark Hatred]

That's not true, crimes are committed on impulse and through passion- you can add murder to that. Do you really think that a murderer would stop before he's about to kill someone and say wait I could get arrested and killed for that.

There's no evidence to prove that it lowers crime rates- in fact when Canada abolished the death Penalty their murder rate decreased by 40%.

Possibly. They could think before they act. Do you really think that in the United States murder rates would drop if capital punishment was done away with? This reminds me of the movie "The Purge"! Some criminals would think they can get away with whatever. We might as well keep it the way it is.