IS it right or wrong with deathpenalty?

I don't think the death penalty would be a good solution even if our justice system were better at reaching the right result. Once you add in the possibility of wrongful conviction, I think whatever potential benefits there may be are outweighed by the risk of executing innocents.

Well, I think that killing someone is wrong, (unless you reall have to for like self defence or something).

If you do get the death penalty, I say test drugs on them for like cancer or AIDS.

I say cook the worthless piles of dog crap and feed them to homeless people. That way, they'll actually contribute to society.:)Silver_Dragon17

I don't belive the death pentalty is any good.

think of it this way. Your 30 years old. Would it be worse to be electrucuted for 4 seconds or spend the rets of your life, lets say 50 years, in a small, confined room with notihng to do but stare at bars of metal?

I think it would be harder to go 50 years in jail then getiing electrucuted for 4 seconds. He would suffer more...

I think its right, you kill someone then you should be killed...fair trade imo-WhiteSnake-

I think that to but if you think. The real ruff stuff in such penalty is the waitning to be executed. That you now maybe I'm dead tommorow. I think that is the real penalty

I think people should be sent to jail for murder/attempted murder, and if after their sentence they go out and commit another murder or attempted murder, then they should be executed. This ensures that they at least have a chance to think about what they've done, and maybe change their ways. Keeping people in prison a second time for such a thing is just a waste of time and money really, because if it didn't work the first time, then a second time is pointless.cjek

[QUOTE="cjek"]I think people should be sent to jail for murder/attempted murder, and if after their sentence they go out and commit another murder or attempted murder, then they should be executed. This ensures that they at least have a chance to think about what they've done, and maybe change their ways. Keeping people in prison a second time for such a thing is just a waste of time and money really, because if it didn't work the first time, then a second time is pointless.Def_Jef88

What does that mean?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]I say cook the worthless piles of dog crap and feed them to homeless people. That way, they'll actually contribute to society.:)EboyLOL

Glad you agree.:D

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="cjek"]I think people should be sent to jail for murder/attempted murder, and if after their sentence they go out and commit another murder or attempted murder, then they should be executed. This ensures that they at least have a chance to think about what they've done, and maybe change their ways. Keeping people in prison a second time for such a thing is just a waste of time and money really, because if it didn't work the first time, then a second time is pointless.elproson

What does that mean?

Quoted for truth

I believe in it for those who are sentenced to life with no parole. What's the point in letting them live if they're just going to waste the rest of their lives in a prison cell other than to waste tax payer dollars?JustPlainLucas

it cost more to kill some one, than keep them alive, i know werid, but with all the court cases and the appeals and stuff like that, it take alot more money. and alot more time.

no, no human, no matter how bad, deserves to die.

I think its right but you should search the evidence real close and be 100% sure that it was the right person that you executed.elproson

That's why they have these things called trials. And yes, I believe in the death penalty. However, I feel the system is extremely flawed.

I don't belive the death pentalty is any good.

think of it this way. Your 30 years old. Would it be worse to be electrucuted for 4 seconds or spend the rets of your life, lets say 50 years, in a small, confined room with notihng to do but stare at bars of metal?

I think it would be harder to go 50 years in jail then getiing electrucuted for 4 seconds. He would suffer more...

_EvidencE_

4 seconds? Bit more than that mate, there was even a case where a man had to kill himself by bashing his head off of the chair so hard that he died because the sianide tablet they dropped in the water wasn't powerfull enough so all it did was make him start coughing and start his lungs burning...

if they arnt completely sure who did it or a person killed another for self defence then they shouldn't die, but if some sick prick was killing children and doing all sorts of stuff like that then they should torture them first

Nothing can ever be 100% though, that is the problem.chico129

sure it can be 100%

The risk of executing innocent people is a decisive objection to the institution of capital punishment in the United States. Consequentialist arguments for the death penalty are inconclusive at best; the strongest justification is a retributive one. This argument is seriously undercut if a significant risk of executing the innocent exists. Any criminal justice system carries the risk of punishing innocent persons, but the punishment of death is unique and requires greater precautions.

Retributive justifications for the death penalty are grounded in respect for innocent victims of homicide; but accepting serious risks of mistaken executions demonstrates disrespect for innocent human life.

I believe in the use of the death penalty...but I think there are flaws in the logic of the death penalty...

Guy stabs a person 67 times and he gets an alcohol swab rubbed on his arm and then injected with a serum to make him pass out and die...yeah...real fair trade...innocent person dies horrible death, killer gets off with being made to go to sleep. You kill a person you should get killed in the same manner. Too, I think pedophiles should be included into the death penalty running. Why keep such sickos on the planet? What purpose do they serve?

But it's all because of so called "Human Rights Activists"...'You can't do that to a human, subjecting him to the death penalty is inhumane!'....Whoa whoa whoa...What?! Inhumane?! And what he did to the person he killed or the child he molested was 'humane' I suppose? I can't have any sympathy for a proven murderer, child molester, pedophile, rapist, etc...Whatever horrible thing could happen to them and it wouldn't bother me a bit.

Some say "You shouldn't return evil for evil." or " You shouldn't fight fire with fire."...I look at it as "Extinguishing the fire." Fire springs up what do you do? You put it out by whatever means necessary right? After the fire is extinguished the damage is stopped and you can rebuild or salvage what's left.Same principle...No more killer/molester/rapist = no more killings/molesting/rapes from that person... guaranteed, no doubts about it, that person will NEVER do what he did ever again. Then the family or person(s) victomized can move on or try to salvage or cope with what's left.

If I have offended or angered anyone with these statements and views...all you have to do is give me the 'Pro killing/molesting/raping innocent people' side of the arguement.

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]I say cook the worthless piles of dog crap and feed them to homeless people. That way, they'll actually contribute to society.:)Silver_Dragon17

Glad you agree.:D

Yeah sure, but I think that the punishment should be in accordance with the crime. For example, someone who embezzles a company or uses insider information to profit, such as Martha Stewart, should have to pay back what was stolen instead of just going to prison/day camp for a couple months. And for anyone guilty of rape or child molestation: castration. :shock: If you stick it where it doesn't belong, you don't deserve to keep it. Really, it's the ultimate quick fix. Screw rehabilitation, castration costs virtually nothing, and there won't be a second offense because it's impossible! :Dsahredd

Yeah sure, but I think that the punishment should be in accordance with the crime. For example, someone who embezzles a company or uses insider information to profit, such as Martha Stewart, should have to pay back what was stolen instead of just going to prison/day camp for a couple months. And for anyone guilty of rape or child molestation: castration. :shock: If you stick it where it doesn't belong, you don't deserve to keep it. Really, it's the ultimate quick fix. Screw rehabilitation, castration costs virtually nothing, and there won't be a second offense because it's impossible! :Dsahredd

2) If you were to do that to an alleged rapist, it might prompt him to murder someone...

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]I believe in it for those who are sentenced to life with no parole. What's the point in letting them live if they're just going to waste the rest of their lives in a prison cell other than to waste tax payer dollars?Ares0nFire

it cost more to kill some one, than keep them alive, i know werid, but with all the court cases and the appeals and stuff like that, it take alot more money. and alot more time.

The American justice system theoretically issues guilty verdicts only when it is beyond reasonable doubt for EVERY CRIME. Many of you seem to forget that.quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]The American justice system theoretically issues guilty verdicts only when it is beyond reasonable doubt for EVERY CRIME. Many of you seem to forget that.Goose

I think life in prison is worse than death.nintendo_ds_06

I think its right, you kill someone then you should be killed...fair trade imo-WhiteSnake-