Death penalty is Good for some cases, ex : someone kills so many people or he/she killed one innocemt family, he/she must get a death penalty
Also the case of a rape should also include in the lists of crime for death penalty. I believe it should be one of the priority case, since the rape victims is increasing rapidly just like theft. And it is not good. 
Topic: How do you feel about the death penalty? - page 32. (Read 26088 times)
First thing is that the innocence or guilt should be proven first. The problem is that there are some cases wherein the person executed is proven innicent years after they're already dead. This is not an uncommon case for countries that apply this rule. If someone is guilty of a heinous crime, then they have to face what they're due but if someone has been falsely or incorrectly convicted then they should not be executed. I think the first thing that needs to be looked at is how reliable is the justice system of a certain country implementing death penalty is.
Science has advanced quite a bit now, and with improved forensic technology such as DNA imprints, the chances of someone getting falsely accused is closer to zero. Also, in case of death penalty, the sentence is usually handed to those with prior criminal convictions.
Death penalty is very difficult issue, from political side, medical, social, philosophical, religious etc.
In case of war, to defend the nation and people, soldiers can shoot and kill the enemy.
However, what if we are not at war?
Does society have a moral right to apply the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as in the Old Testament?
In the most countries in the world today, answer is simple no.
They do not want to destroy human life, but to rehabilitate the person and allow repentance and new life.
I think that such way is much more humanistic than death penalty practice today in America.
If someone is too dangerous for society, it is clear that we will not let him out.
Not everyone can be rehabilitated and not everyone wants it, the death penalty must be the last choice but it must be there, some subjects have committed such horrible crimes that they have not only forfeited their right to be free but in some cases their right to be alive. In case of war, to defend the nation and people, soldiers can shoot and kill the enemy.
However, what if we are not at war?
Does society have a moral right to apply the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as in the Old Testament?
In the most countries in the world today, answer is simple no.
They do not want to destroy human life, but to rehabilitate the person and allow repentance and new life.
I think that such way is much more humanistic than death penalty practice today in America.
If someone is too dangerous for society, it is clear that we will not let him out.
Death penalty is Good for some cases, ex : someone kills so many people or he/she killed one innocemt family, he/she must get a death penalty
I support it but only for those who committed some heavy crimes,
Like Murders and rape the ones that takes life I think they should also pay with a life.
Like Murders and rape the ones that takes life I think they should also pay with a life.
I support the "eye for an eye" rule. If someone commits a crime, then he needs to pay for it. But I am not that supportive of death penalty. There should be another alternative. The criminals who commit offenses such as pedophilia and murder must be shipped to some remote penal colony in Siberia or Antarctica, where they should do slave labor until their death.
First thing is that the innocence or guilt should be proven first. The problem is that there are some cases wherein the person executed is proven innicent years after they're already dead. This is not an uncommon case for countries that apply this rule. If someone is guilty of a heinous crime, then they have to face what they're due but if someone has been falsely or incorrectly convicted then they should not be executed. I think the first thing that needs to be looked at is how reliable is the justice system of a certain country implementing death penalty is.
I support it but only for those who committed some heavy crimes,
Like Murders and rape the ones that takes life I think they should also pay with a life.
Like Murders and rape the ones that takes life I think they should also pay with a life.
I support the "eye for an eye" rule. If someone commits a crime, then he needs to pay for it. But I am not that supportive of death penalty. There should be another alternative. The criminals who commit offenses such as pedophilia and murder must be shipped to some remote penal colony in Siberia or Antarctica, where they should do slave labor until their death.
In the U.S. state of Arkansas for eleven days from 17 to 27 April - going execution of seven men sentenced to death. The reason for such haste is that at the end of the month expiration midazolam - medicines used for injections in the execution of the death penalty. Over the last ten years in Arkansas were not executed prisoners. The seven men were handed down death sentences in the period between 1990 and 2000, the years for murder, robbery and rape. Midazolam is one of the drugs used in the process of execution of a death sentence to the convicts fainted. In the US the use of this drug is considered controversial after 2014, one of the sentenced to death more than 40 minutes remained conscious after the injection of midazolam and died a painful death. European manufacturers of midazolam refuse to deliver to US an additional batch of the drug. Existing stocks will end shortly, so in Arkansas and hurry to execute the death penalty.
I support it but only for those who committed some heavy crimes,
Like Murders and rape the ones that takes life I think they should also pay with a life.
It is something that we should leave behind in the last century
For some retarded people, progress means the legalization of pedophilia and the abolition of the death sentence. I can't agree with this. Those who commit heinous crimes deserve severe punishment.
I support the death penalty, but it must be done properly according to the procedure. Basically the death penalty must also fulfill the element of humanity, as if during the execution should not be tortured and the convict must without pain. If the execution is done by injecting drugs and there are even torturous effects I think it is inhuman, and can be said to violate human rights. I think if it should be done the death penalty is better in another way that does not torture.
And what's the point then for the perpetrators in a quick death? They will only benefit from this. The death penalty must be painful, you must answer for your sins.
It is something that we should leave behind in the last century
I support the death penalty, but it must be done properly according to the procedure. Basically the death penalty must also fulfill the element of humanity, as if during the execution should not be tortured and the convict must without pain. If the execution is done by injecting drugs and there are even torturous effects I think it is inhuman, and can be said to violate human rights. I think if it should be done the death penalty is better in another way that does not torture.
And what's the point then for the perpetrators in a quick death? They will only benefit from this. The death penalty must be painful, you must answer for your sins.
It obviously costs a lot to keep them on death row... So people who say it is cheaper to sentence people to death than to put them in prison for life, it's true but doesn't make that much of a difference. Also if you take into account how expensive the equipment to execute plus the chemicals for lethal injection cost.
And by the time they are about to get executed, most of them already changed into a completely new person.
I feel like the death penalty is definitely unnecessary.
And by the time they are about to get executed, most of them already changed into a completely new person.
I feel like the death penalty is definitely unnecessary.
I support death penalty specially if the are sentence because of rape or murder,
I think it will lessen the rape and murder case.
I think it will lessen the rape and murder case.
Death penalty for rape? Sounds ridiculous to me. I'm not against death penalty for the worst crimes, but rape is definitely not one of those. A raped woman can have a normal life, she's not mutilated or anything. The punishment should always be equal to the crime.
Perhaps you are from some Muslim-majority nation. Rape is almost like a murder for the women. Her life is changed for ever, and in most of the cases she will suffer depression and mental disorders for the rest of her life. It is one of the most heinous crimes.
The question of the appropriateness of capital punishment as the death penalty, a discussion. To sentence a murderer to death for his crime is the embodiment of the principle of Talion ("blood for blood" or "an eye for an eye") that has existed throughout human history. I'm for the death penalty.
I support death penalty specially if the are sentence because of rape or murder,
I think it will lessen the rape and murder case.
I think it will lessen the rape and murder case.
Death penalty for rape? Sounds ridiculous to me. I'm not against death penalty for the worst crimes, but rape is definitely not one of those. A raped woman can have a normal life, she's not mutilated or anything. The punishment should always be equal to the crime.
I support death penalty specially if the are sentence because of rape or murder,
I think it will lessen the rape and murder case.
I don’t think that it would affect the crime rate, I just think that it would prevent the prison system from getting full of dangerous members. I think it will lessen the rape and murder case.
Hmm.. It's hard to decide who's lives and who's not. I don't know if you are the right ones to decide that. But you can't leave a serial killer who killed kids to leave, even in jail. Any man who are in jail for a reason, there not actually punished, bcs they are still eat for free, have cigarettes for free even women to have fun. But even then I don't know if we have to accept the death penalty :/
Even the death penalty is very lenient now. Those who are sentenced to death usually go for multiple appeals, and this can take up to 25-30 years (appeals are made at the expense of the tax payer). Even after all this, the death row inmates may get a last minute respite and the death sentence may be commuted to life without parole.
Hmm.. It's hard to decide who's lives and who's not. I don't know if you are the right ones to decide that. But you can't leave a serial killer who killed kids to leave, even in jail. Any man who are in jail for a reason, there not actually punished, bcs they are still eat for free, have cigarettes for free even women to have fun. But even then I don't know if we have to accept the death penalty :/
I support the death penalty, but it must be done properly according to the procedure. Basically the death penalty must also fulfill the element of humanity, as if during the execution should not be tortured and the convict must without pain. If the execution is done by injecting drugs and there are even torturous effects I think it is inhuman, and can be said to violate human rights. I think if it should be done the death penalty is better in another way that does not torture.
I think that's why this is so? All the forum support the existence of the death penalty for serious crimes, but in real life no one requires that its senators and MPs. Maybe it's time to demand?
The senators and the MPs very rarely fall victims of violent crime. They live in posh gated communities, where the crime rate is extremely low. That is why they are very reluctant to support the implementation of the death penalty. On the other hand, the poor and the middle class make up for the vast majority of the victims of violent crime. These people will demand that death penalty must be used against heinous crimes.
Jump to: