We as humans need to protect and help one another. I understand that to some people the death penalty should be legalized. But who are we to play God, to kill those we deem deserve death? We are hypocrites if we kill a murder. What would be next? Raping a rapist? It must be taken in perspective. Yes, it's only used in extreme cases, but even in Sweden there is a prison where the maximum sentence is 12 years. They use their resources to educate and help the prisoners. The prisoners come out of there well educated and do not go back to hurting others. This should be considered. After all, we are humans, and it is not morally correct to kill other humans.
I used to be a supporter of the death penalty. On an emotional level I often feel that some criminals should die....especially those who hurt children, or torture and kill mercilessly.
However, after taking a sociology class we learned that countries with a death penalty have higher murder rates than those without. It seems to be because the actions of the government are often internalized by the population as a normative ethical code. Therefore, if the government thinks killing people is a 'solution' then the general population will also think killing is a solution.
Once I thought about that, I realized that I actually do not support the death penalty.
Besides the circularity of the logic is well known: We kill people, who kill people, to prove that killing people is wrong.
Finally, there is a statistical probability that we accidentally kill innocent people, since our justice system isn't perfect. In my opinion, even killing one innocent person accidentally, is enough to make the whole practice immoral.
So, as much as I do think some people deserve to die, I don't think it is good to place the power of capital punishment in the hands of a government....particularly since no government is ever infallible.
It is better for a person to die knowing that he/she did wrong no matter how long it took them to acknowledge that, than to die and never realising their wrong deed. Life with the burden is more difficult than death.
I've had this discussion with a colleague of mine before. For the two of us it came down to whether the death penalty could be applied reliably against the correct perpetrator of the crime. I argued that it could be applied with the correct amount of knowledge, and used examples of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley as examples of that. He disagreed, and believed that on this subject it is best to err on the side of caution. Yet he failed to convince me because with modern technology the perpetrator could be identified with more than enough assurance needed for such a conviction (as in ~99% certainty).
For me I am within the ~70% who believes the death penalty can be applied successfully. However I do only believe in such a measure for first degree homicide, as in that circumstance I believe that the death penalty ensures the perpetrator never again commits such a heinous act but also the punishment would fit the crime more adequately than many of the verdicts applied today.
Death penalty doesn't do anything else other than more violence.
Maybe it costs less than keeping them in jail, maybe its easier, for some a relief and for others it may be revenge or pleasure.
Thing is - we're humans and regardless we still proceed to hurt one another. If you want to fix this - killing even more of us isn't going to fix the problem - that way you'll just make it worse.
It may be a solution to some; but there's nothing to do about it and I am nearly guaranteed it hasn't and won't work as it's been proven in the past.
How do we know what could "Death penalty" applied to and for? Some may say Murder, rape; etc. But how do we know we'll keep it under control? How do we know who keeps it within the boundaries?
In some countries, being homosexual would receive the same penalty as being a rapist and it is considered to be in the same category. Today, we would start with murderes; tomorrow with rapists; after that with homosexuals - and in the future you'll be sentenced to death penalty for just not agreeing to a certain president, state, or religion.
We need to grow out of this and work all together - people can be fixed and people can change. Some things come from the childhood or a wrongfully done path of learning; we need to learn to correct these people as we should all have a fair and equal chance. Crime I doubt will ever stop - we shouldn't worry about what to do with the criminal after the crime has been done, we should worry about how to prevent the crime from happening at all.
Killing someone won't bring you a loved one back, and it won't make the others stand back - you'll just instead make them angrier or have more of a purpose against you and/or whoever it is.
Some may say Prison doesn't work, but that's because Prison isn't and hasn't been set up properly in the past few years - it shouldn't punish, it should teach and reconstruct a person back to it's morals; it should try to make the person see what was wrong and not to do it again, or ever; or even know not to do it in ever in the first place. We can never be 100% sure if the person is actually guilty, and innocent people can always die - once again, we're never sure.
We can't control power, and killing someone would make us just as "bad" as the person we'd be sentencing.
This of course can be taken and moved back and forth inbetween many many different perspectives - and it requires a lot of analyzing - but I believe this to be the right way to think of it and see it. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if you think otherwise. I'd be glad and interested to hear & know.
Thanks you very much, and wish you good luck.
Putting aside morality, I am of the opinion that justice systems are much too fallible to dole out such a sentence. Even if a justice system were somehow 99% correct we cannot allow for the possibility of executing an innocent person. Even in cases where there is apparently infallible evidence we cannot allow the precedent to exist.
Affectively, one might ask, should murder be allowed?
The only difference between the state/country committing murder and an individual is motivation and methods.
The states motivations being punishment, revenge and, the claim at least, that the action deters the act in others.
The latter view apparently held despite the eleven thousand or so people murdered the U.S.A in 2014.
I mention the States as it is one of the few counties that still executes.
Is there a more inhumane act than to hold a person on death row for years and then finally decide to execute them?
Yes, death penalty should be allowed. Criminals that have been proven guilty without a doubt and that have committed an uncalled for and irreversible crime deserve to be executed, especially if these people are not able to be rehabilitated. If they were to get out, although it's not likely, they would probably get out and do it again, costing another innocent life. I know that it is wrong to kill but why should someone that went out and kill someone else be able to enjoy another day behind bars when you got family members out there suffer and hurting. I feel that if allowing the death penalty it would stop a lot of these senseless crime as far as taking someone life.
I don't see the need to use the death penalty. Murders as inhuman as they may seem, are in fact human. A psychologist interviewed murders and cam up with these conclusions. and lastly, "Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?" as said by Holly Near
Killing people who have killed people makes about as much sense as the rest of the government's nonsense.
People talk against the Constitution, against the "right to bear arms" portion, and say that the document is old and out of date and didn't take into account modern times...
The same people who applaud the death penalty seem to forget the "eye for an eye" doctrine predates the Constitution by about 4,000 years...
So... when is a document too old to be of worth?
No. Ineffective deterrent, costs more, innocents have been exonerated by DNA evidence, life in prison is better punishment, and it gives the government the ability to legally kill.
No for these two reasons:
- If you call death sentence for someone that commited a kill, you should also call death sentence to the person that put on the electrical chair: he is a killer too.
- If you kill a person which is actually innocent, what would you do at last ? Revive him ?
Only in extreme cases (like:evil mastermind-ish plans to conquer or destroy the world,Spectre-like acting),in other cases (murder,armed robbery,rampage,vandalism on important buildings) reducation should take place.