Death Penalty

[CWeb Creative]

I have to say I am against it. I believe that it is such a perminent act and one that is iffy at best that it is not something we should do. While there are a few people that just aren't fit for society I think that rather than just removing them we should make sure that no one becomes like them. I don't believe that anyone is just a bad person, I think that it is a learned behavior and can be prevented. Prisions aren't even a real part of the federal budget and closing them or reducing population will have little effect on the deficit unless you take it to the VERY EXTREME which would endanger the rest of the people in the country.

 

[lllllllbob61]

" Killing a man, who killed a man, is no better than the man that killed. "

 

[swirly]

I'm against the death penalty. I mean just because someone kills someone does that mean we should take their lives too? Is that not murder itself? How many murders have the people who carry out the death penalty taken? Why are they not as guilty as the person who's life they are taking? As the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." And there are three inalienable rights everyone has learned about, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Everyone seems to forget we are simply advanced animals. If an animal, say a wolf, kills another wolf, is that murder? Is he killed for what he's done? I don't think so. But that's my $.02.

 

[whd55]

When you decide to kill another human being, you are stepping into another realm. You have decided to abolish humanity and have become inhuman. I think the court system can make the decision in a responsible manner and the murderer's fate is justified.

 

[Darkmere]

I'm against the death penalty. I mean just because someone kills someone does that mean we should take their lives too? Is that not murder itself? How many murders have the people who carry out the death penalty taken? Why are they not as guilty as the person who's life they are taking? As the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." And there are three inalienable rights everyone has learned about, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Everyone seems to forget we are simply advanced animals. If an animal, say a wolf, kills another wolf, is that murder? Is he killed for what he's done? I don't think so. But that's my $.02.

No it would not be murder, because murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a persons life. So if the court justifies a person to be executed it would fall under killing but not murder since it was legally sanctioned. And yes if a person murders another person they should forfeit their life as payment to the person whos life they taken. Eye for an eye.

 

[swirly]

But man creates the law. What about a man who breaks a law he created? You're basically saying that the death penalty is making murder legal. So its OK to murder, but only when the law permits it? That's a bit ridiculous in my opinion. And if you're referring to Hammurabi's code, you should read it. It literally meant an eye for an eye. If you stared at another man's wife he could pretty much cut your eyes out. Is that fair?

 

[whitebus]

death penalty moderated with a three strikes policy.
life in prison is not punishment, as it creates a prison lifestyle that breeds more hardened criminals.
death is part of everyone's journey and of natural selection. it should not be feared and we as society should not be afraid to use it.
the scariest statistic of all is the number of escaped convicts out there.

i have to confess, i'm not american. i come from one of those so called enlightened countries that have abolished the death penalty. here we even try to make criminals out of law abiding gun owners. i fear the day when only government agents have guns. the people will always need a means to overthrow a corrupt government. the pen is only mightier than the sword when readers have a sword to act on the words from the pen.

 

[skul9x47]

I like this game!

 

[Darkmere]

But man creates the law. What about a man who breaks a law he created? You're basically saying that the death penalty is making murder legal. So its OK to murder, but only when the law permits it? That's a bit ridiculous in my opinion. And if you're referring to Hammurabi's code, you should read it. It literally meant an eye for an eye. If you stared at another man's wife he could pretty much cut your eyes out. Is that fair?

Really? You are still failing to point out how the death penalty is unjustified. And yes laws are made by man but does not change the fact that the death penalty is not murder. 1.) Not illegal 2.) Justified. You are one of those people that think they should just be in jail for the rest of their lives. You know those people are laughing at you. They dont care about being in jail for the rest of their lives. They get a free meal and a roof over their heads. Death penalty is way to make them feel what the person of the life they took felt. Why do you think people on death row appeal all the time. It is because they would rather sit in jail for the rest of their lives. So by supporting life sentencing you are playing right into what they want.

 

[vekou]

I voted for Against even though I'm not 100% against it.
In most countries that states in their constitution about the preservation of life, etc, I think it's a bit unconstitutional, if you look at it in a different kind of point of view. It is undeniable that sometimes the only way to stop a criminal from its "evil" doings is by killing him, thus protecting more lives, which gives us the "fair" trade-off of one life for the lives of many. But if we view the criminal as a human being, he is also entitled to the same human right as everyone of us, which makes the blood boil for the victims and their families. In my opinion, capital punishment should only be executed on the most grievous offenders that scales international security and safety.

 

[kinley3]

I think it's a matter of constitutional interpretation. If there's a passage in a constitution dealing with "preservation of life," does that mean the preservation of every single human life living in the country? Or does it mean the preservation of the life of the country? One could argue that losing a murderer every now and then is for the overall improvement (and preservation) of the state. It's the old "kill one, save a thousand" situation. Of course, not everyone sees it that way, but to me, it's hard to find something wrong with that idea.

 

[kitchsterisms27]

The death penalty should be abolished for the simple reason no matter how severe the crime a man has committed, killing him will not undo his heinous crimes and will not bring back those that he killed. Instead a man who is proven guilty should work in anyway possible to payback those who he has harmed and the families of those he has harmed. There are several cases where those who committed the most grotesque crimes were easily rehabilitated by putting them into a proper psychological rehabilitation program and putting them in the proper environment. In Israel, criminals are put into spiritual centres like the kibutz and the environment often has a very positive effect on criminals. It is dangerous to subscribe to the notion that killing a man solves the wrongs he did, what makes the governments/ prison system better than the criminal then? Since they too succumb to the nefarious notion that it is acceptable to kill a human in order to solve their own perception of " injustice ". An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

[andrew35133]

I support the death penalty but also there are some situations where I wouldn't sentence the person to death. If I had to design a penalty I would take the top 10% of the worst prisoners and send them to an uninhabited island to survive on there own without the help of society. Have all the prisoners on that same island (for them its freedom) and just study what humans do under these sorts of conditions

 

[swirly]

I never said that we should let them sit in jail for the rest of their life. I simply said that the death penalty was still murder and that I was against it. Make them work while they're in prison. And being in prison costs the person money I think, I can't remember off the top of my head. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I agree with some of the points your making such as why people appeal all the time and that people get a meal etc. etc.

 

[Darkmere]

I understand that ... the thing I am pointing out is calling it murder. Just because you do not like and or support it does not make it murder.

 

[kinley3]

Being in prison costs taxpayers money. Not the convict.

 

[Jessica.C]

I am with death penalty. Death penalty should give only murderer and rapist.

and that makes us murderers. we kill the killers. to teach others killing is bad?

 

[Darkmere]

and that makes us murderers. we kill the killers. to teach others killing is bad?

Again no ... Murder is unlawful. So just because you dont like them killing the murderers make it ok to call us murderers as well. That would be like calling a Soldier a murderer. IMO you are twisting the situation greater than what it is. In no way is executing a murderer teaching anyone that killing is bad. It is merely a justified payment for acts rendered, nothing more. It is to instill that if you commit murder you run the risk of losing your life as well.

 

[rolandr]

I was took an upper division English course titled "Reasoning, Argumentation, and Writing". The first day the instructor stated: "We will not debate on Pro-Life, Gun Control, War, and Capital Punishment. These are moral issues and no one here is going to change the oppositions' minds. If you want to debate on these subjects, then take Professor 'so-so"."

So basically everyone has their stands and we're not going to change each others mind.

 

[Clinton]

I was took an upper division English course titled "Reasoning, Argumentation, and Writing". The first day the instructor stated: "We will not debate on Pro-Life, Gun Control, War, and Capital Punishment. These are moral issues and no one here is going to change the oppositions' minds. If you want to debate on these subjects, then take Professor 'so-so"."

So basically everyone has their stands and we're not going to change each others mind.

True, but that's just taking the easy road. Opinions are worth discussing no matter the subject.