It's wrong because it's a flawed system. If there's a chance that someone innocent can end up on death row then that proves there should never be a death penalty. Something in the area of 21 people were murdered by the death penalty and later found to be innocent. We are only human and make mistakes and therefore should not give someone an unretractable punishment.
It's wrong because it's a flawed system. If there's a chance that someone innocent can end up on death row then that proves there should never be a death penalty. Something in the area of 21 people were murdered by the death penalty and later found to be innocent. We are only human and make mistakes and therefore should not give someone an unretractable punishment.GreatDecay
that was the first thought i had about the matter too
wrong in all cases. there is too much bias in the system. besides it costs less money to keep them locked up for life (becuase a death penalty trial is very expensive) so it makes more sense to keep them alive.
Well I'm not against it. Some people don't deserve the chance to redeem themselves.wallymartin
But who decides which people "don't deserve the chance to redeem themselves"? I wouldn't trust anyone else with that decision. Would you trust a committee? I am categorically against the death penalty as a means of punishment. The only conceivable situation in which I would consider condoning it would be in a situation of just, total war where it would be used to deter soldiers from deserting.
i say right. i say its the best deterrent against crime. if you commit a crime, you die. simple, and we righteous taxpayers dont have to pay their jail costs.
It depends on the case. In Australia, where there can be 20ish suspects that could have commited the crime, and, say you kill, the one who you think is the criminal, and it later turns out that he is not, then you can not go back. But, in Iraq, Saddam Hussain is the only person who could have those crimes. Kill him all you want.
The death penalty has always been wrong.Because believing that taking someones life is an actualy punishment is just absurd. IT's murder. That's all it is. No excuses about it.
I would say it is right in cases such as Saddam's, because it has been proven that he is a cold-blooded killer. But in cases that it has not been proven that they are horrible people, I don't believe it is the right thing to do.
i say right. i say its the best deterrent against crime. if you commit a crime, you die. simple, and we righteous taxpayers dont have to pay their jail costs.jellomeister24
When you commit a crime, you're either not thinking rationally and so don't even think of the consequences, or you think you're gonna get away with it. Death is no more of a deterrent than community service. and death penalty is more expensive than life inprisonment, too.
[QUOTE="mr111111"]All for it. Some bastards you just can't help.quiglythegreat
Yes, I agree. And if you can't help something, destroy it. What's so annoying to me about this is that it implies that you do WANT to help them, but, oh darn, you couldn't, so let's kill them. Isn't that the same process of "training" animals and children in some cases? If he doesn't listen, beat him. The installing of fear of physical torture solves everything. :wink:
i say if u have killed more then 2 people then u deserve it. Coz if u kill one i say time in jail get another chance but if they went and did it again i believe there life then should be taken away.
It's an understandable and logical action. To me, the Death Penalty isn't so much a deterrant to not commit a crime as it is an action to deal with criminals with no hope of reform.
In the UK we don't have the death penalty, and as a result nearly every prison in the country is full. To 'combat' this, my goverment is, instead of building more prisons, becoming more lenient towards felons. A good example: a man was caught with thousands of child porn images on his computer. He would undoubtedly have faced a jail sentence, but because of the situation at the moment he was released, with nothing more than a fine. A fine! How is that going to stop him possibly molesting children? It's madness. Although he wouldn't have been put to death, perhaps if people were he could have served time. Also, 'life' never means life here, and 30 years is usually the max. sentence, even for strings of murders.. I say that because they get out in less than half that. If this continues our country will be overrun by sickos. This is why I fully support the death penalty, to try and begin cleansing our country of this filth.
[QUOTE="psymon_05"]In the UK we don't have the death penalty, and as a result nearly every prison in the country is full. To 'combat' this, my goverment is, instead of building more prisons, becoming more lenient towards felons. A good example: a man was caught with thousands of child porn images on his computer. He would undoubtedly have faced a jail sentence, but because of the situation at the moment he was released, with nothing more than a fine. A fine! How is that going to stop him possibly molesting children? It's madness. Although he wouldn't have been put to death, perhaps if people were he could have served time. Also, 'life' never means life here, and 30 years is usually the max. sentence, even for strings of murders.. I say that because they get out in less than half that. If this continues our country will be overrun by sickos. This is why I fully support the death penalty, to try and begin cleansing our country of this filth. Yes, here in the UK, we should have a stricter law. nice points btw.
Log in to comment