Should all murderers be sentenced to death

[ShyGuyInChicago]

One could argue that since murder victims can't live neither should murderers.

[Amnesiac]

Life in prison is worse than the death penalty. Not only do you die, but you die in a small, grey room with nobody around you. The death penalty is an outdated practice which lets people like murderers, a good percentage of whom commit suicide after the crime to escape life in prison, pretty much get away with what their goals were.

[huginnmuninn]

a lot of murderers get released early for various reasons and a lot of murerers dont get life in prison even the ones who purposefully murder others and know exactly what they are doing. for that reason i am pro death penalty

[MisterE]

the life of a murderer is a life that to me is worthless, the lowest of the low, and when they dont get death, they can be released before the end of there life, and alot of them are, how do you feel about murderers walking amoung out society? also, being in prison is being a burdon to socioty, everyone pays for those places, so wouldnt it be better not to have to pay for as many prisons? so i think the death penltey should be sentenced to all murderers

[maestro15]

An Eye for an Eye is what they call it! I agree with some things My good friend :hug: Stewie says about it. But If we do Life sentences or Executions for the Murderers, Jails will have to be filled up and the execution process isnt cheap. Therefore, Innocent people would have to pay higher taxes. And aftere murderer is released, His life would be almost over because of a bad reputation. No job offers, Youll have bad relations, and so on.
Go by th golden rule!!

[Amnesiac]

a lot of murderers get released early for various reasons and a lot of murerers dont get life in prison even the ones who purposefully murder others and know exactly what they are doing. for that reason i am pro death penalty

After 20+ years isolated in the middle of nowhere with no contact whatsoever, I wouldn't say they'd be murdering again. A majority of industrialized countries do not use the death penalty, and their societies are in many cases safer than the United States'.

[huginnmuninn]

After 20+ years isolated in the middle of nowhere with no contact whatsoever, I wouldn't say they'd be murdering again. A majority of industrialized countries do not use the death penalty, and their societies are in many cases safer than the United States'.

no contact? what about other prisoners? some prisons even have tv! sometimes prison is better than the places that the prisoners come from.


and for those of you who say execution is expensive a few bullets are cheap.

[HalfDeadHippie]

This is a tricky question for me....
Obviously, those that kill in self-defense, such as a home intrusion, some sort of attacker, etc. Shouldn't be killed. When it comes to ACTUAL murderers, I think having them suffer for the rest of their lives in prison is often worse than death itself.
However, If one of my personal family members or friends were to be killed, my opinion might change causing me to want revenge and have him/her put to death.
Here comes the trickiest part. There have been times when someone has been wrongly accused of murder (it's rare, yet still happens). In this case, life in prison would be better, for killing them would be awful, for they have done Nothing! Yet, there is no way for us to know that they are innocent, for they have already been sentenced. Now, if we stick with giving them "the Chair", we have... and WILL put innocent people to their deaths.......................................So, YOU can figure out for yourself what to do abou THAT! Good luck! I've tried.

[Amnesiac]

no contact? what about other prisoners? some prisons even have tv! sometimes prison is better than the places that the prisoners come from.


and for those of you who say execution is expensive a few bullets are cheap.

When I said "no contact", I meant with family and friends. I couldn't care less about whether prisoners have TV, you wouldn't argue against taking books away from them, and books are a form of entertainment as TV is.

We are not going to resort back to shooting as an execution technique. You think locking up murderers for life is "too expensive"? Stop locking up non-violent drug offenders and teenagers who pose no threat to society. Stop locking up people who barely did anything wrong. Legalize drugs, tax it heavily and use that revenue to make the U.S. a safer place.

[huginnmuninn]

When I said "no contact", I meant with family and friends. I couldn't care less about whether prisoners have TV, you wouldn't argue against taking books away from them, and books are a form of entertainment as TV is.

We are not going to resort back to shooting as an execution technique. You think locking up murderers for life is "too expensive"? Stop locking up non-violent drug offenders and teenagers who pose no threat to society. Stop locking up people who barely did anything wrong. Legalize drugs, tax it heavily and use that revenue to make the U.S. a safer place.

i agree with you from "Stop locking up non-violent drug offenders and teenagers who pose no threat.." on down. i said tv in the first place because it costs money and its entertainment. prison is supposed to be a punishment and if youre being entertained then how is it a punishment? i didnt say books just like i didnt say some other things prisons have that i dont think they should. i just named one thing. and the majority of former prisoners get sent back to prison so apparently something isnt working because the former prisoner cant be that worried about going back. so maybe if we take away some stuff they will be more worried about going back

[Amnesiac]

i agree with you from "Stop locking up non-violent drug offenders and teenagers who pose no threat.." on down. i said tv in the first place because it costs money and its entertainment. prison is supposed to be a punishment and if youre being entertained then how is it a punishment? i didnt say books just like i didnt say some other things prisons have that i dont think they should. i just named one thing. and the majority of former prisoners get sent back to prison so apparently something isnt working because the former prisoner cant be that worried about going back. so maybe if we take away some stuff they will be more worried about going back

taking away television is not going to save any money, and it's not going to scare ex-prisoners out of commuting more crimes. what we need is longer sentences for violent offenders and rehabilitation programs for newly-freed prisoners.

[Bryan B]

Why do u want murders (people that doesn't deserve to live after what they have done, and that can be just out in the streets) why keep useless persons in jail for life or just some years, and we the society have to pay with our taxes the prisons, guards salary, tv cable, food and other installation for them ? that's just no fair they even have a "better" life than poor do. so that's what i think they docent deserve all that "privileges" after killing someone.

[Amnesiac]

Why do u want murders (people that doesn't deserve to live after what they have done, and that can be just out in the streets) why keep useless persons in jail for life or just some years, and we the society have to pay with our taxes the prisons, guards salary, tv cable, food and other installation for them ? that's just no fair they even have a "better" life than poor do. so that's what i think they docent deserve all that "privileges" after killing someone.

As I said somewhere before: you want a safe society, you pay for it. Prisons need to be clean, safe and humane. We can't just dump prisoners in a landfill and fence it off. We need the guards, and to prevent people from rotting in their cells, food and clean water. I agree that we don't need TV, but I'm assuming that the guards are already watching it and there's no lost money when it comes to that.

Food and safety aren't "privileges", they're basic necessities. At least homeless people have opportunities to travel freely and stay in shelters. Poverty isn't necessarily worse than prison just because it's not as clean and orderly.

[INFERNO]

I say absolutely not for two reasons. First, there are different types of murder. First-degree murderers and involuntary manslaughterers both commit murder but the reasons and characteristics are completely different. One calculates the kill and selects the person for a reason while another may be a drunk driver. Alternatively, you can have voluntary manslaughter, which includes murder out of self-defense. Certainly someone who murders one person to save an entire family murdered for yet another reason. So by saying "all murderers get put to death", this ignores the reasons, which are crucial.

Second, going back to voluntary manslaughter, if the person is not put to death, then there is a rather large problem: only some murderers get put to death. This brings the challenge of figuring out which do and which don't. So the rest would all get lumped together to be sentenced to death while some wouldn't be sentenced to death.

Third, it seems more like revenge and giving the victim's families closure rather than delivering justice, rehabilitation and reintegration. In fact, it is revenge by saying "you kill person X, then you get killed". If the eye-for-an-eye law will be used for murder, then shouldn't it reflect the different types of murder? I think it'd be rather odd for involuntary manslaughter, where murder was never the goal in any way, to be sentenced to death. You'd be killing someone intentionally who killed unintentionally while intoxicated. Seems completely unfair to me.

Lastly, it throws away the person's life because society has no desire to bother with the person anymore. The person is considered horrible and society wants nothing to do with the person other than kill that person.