Topic: What is your stance on capital punishment? (Read 1253 times)

Do I think some criminals deserve capital punishment? Yes. Some may deserve 50 years of forced labor instead.

Do I believe capital punishment should be used? That is for each individual country to decide, taking in regard their values.

In my country there is no capital punishment and I don't think there should be.

Legal system is far from perfect. Few people realise this, but evidence is too often unreliable. Especially witnesses, their memory and perception is often so flawed, many experts say there should always be corroborating evidence of highest forensic value or there is no ground to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Confessions are often false. 100% certainty is out of reach.

If legal system was clairvoyant and able to convict with 100% certainty, then maybe it could justify capital punishment. Beyond reasonable doubt is just not enough.

You seem to have some logic in assuming that crypto people will have more of a logical mind. We're all still lacking though, a lot, but not as much as other who would probably not have as open of a mind to look into it and understand it enough to stay.

As for the death penalty, I'm completely for it, so long as there is no deniable proof that the person committed the evil crime. I'm talking about DNA plus video of them doing the crime.

My problem with the capital punishment is that its quite final. When you execute someone, you cant bring them back when the law change or if they are proven to be innocent.
Besides, I believe, the penal system should be more about rehabilitation then punishment. We should strive to make a criminal a productive member of society again, not remove them completely.

I do not think any country has been consistent in handling the death penalty. In fact we probably haven't heard all of the stories of them fucking up.

Some Feel the Question of whether the death penalty deters can be argued as a matter of theory: capital punishment is worse than other penalties therefore it must lead to fewer killings. This contention misses much of the complexity of the modern death penalty. First, theory can’t tell us whether the spectacle of state-sanctioned killings operates to unhinge marginal minds into thinking that their own grievances merit similar forms of retribution that they then try to inflict on their Own.... Even if some other criminals were deterred by the death penalty, one must ask whether these avoided crimes would be more than offset by the possible brutalisation effect, Every day, people are executed by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for Acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries it can be for who you sleep with, in others it is reserved for acts of terror and murder. 

there is not one crime anyone could do to me, my partner or children that would convince me to have them murdered in return by an appointed court sentence.....however if a violent setting were to arise and i had to defend them i'd kill the perp easily.

Unfortunately in my country capitol punishment (death penalty) is carried out inconsistently. Justice has a price tag but it is likely that way all around our globe.
We don't utilize the death penalty for the right things.
I don't care if it is a deterrent, if you kidnap children and kill or harm them then you need to be snuffed out of our existence.
There is not a punishment that atones for crimes such as those and there is no good reason to keep a person like that alive.
Anders Breivik should not be serving a 21 year sentence it is ludicrous to me that he is alive and will someday be free?
Serial murderers, rapists, calculating predators need to go. Keeping them in general population in prisons is a waste.

And proper "revenge" would be using them for product testing instead of animals *but we probably shouldn't go that far ;-)

Anyone who enters a house to steal with a weapon like a gun or a knife conveys a message that he/she is ready to kill so when that happens you have to decide to either shoot to kill or be killed yourself because it is self defense and to those who just people they should also be shown no mercy unless it was proven that it was an accidental death.

I totally agree with you! But my point is:
- When thief murders soneone he most likely will be sentenced to capital punishment or long term imprisonment.
- But when judge or jury and prosecutor, careless lawyer et c. are murdering person (i. e. executing the innocent person) they bear no responcibility.

That's disgusting injustice!

Baseball bat isn't considered a lethal weapon though. If they had a knife, sword or gun that's when you should be allowed to take the initiative in a situation. Baseball bats and golf clubs are extremely hard to swing in confined spaces as well as take time to connect and connecting doesn't mean your actually going to do any damage. That might sound mad but a knife wound is far more likely to cause problems than getting hit by a baseball bat.

A lot of thieves use weapons as a scare factor.

If somebody broke into my house my first instinct wouldn't be to kill them. If they were holding a baseball bat I think it would be understandable. A person who comes into your house with a weapon is a much larger threat. I'd probably suspect the person with a baseball bat to possibly be super desperate for drugs that they will do anything for money or someone with a vendetta/illness who wants to kill me. I'm not really the fighting type. I'd probably do the best to escape my house and call the police. If I got trapped in a corner though, you bet I'd fight to the death to stay alive.

When do you draw the line too? If a robber broke into your house and made it obvious that they wasn't interested in confrontation and try to run away yet the home owner kills him for breaking and entering who's the one that should be put up on trial?

This depends on the situation and what country you are located in. But in my opinion breaking into an house isn't the same as murdering someone. Quite often people turn to theft when they are struggling yet they don't actually mean any physical harm. I've had a burglar come to my home and caught him. He try to explain rather nervously that he's struggling and didn't mean no harm and agreed to leave quietly.

I let him go and told actually gave him some advise about consulting a professional to deal with his issues. I never saw or heard from him again but I hope that he's taken my advice and gotten himself out of the rut he was in.

The only time you should take a life is if they are trying to take yours and it's out of self defense. Capital punishment isn't doing this but acting on the behalf of a jury on whether someone should be executed or not. Which as you mentioned are easily bribed etc.

execution death needs to be done to provide legal certainty. Positive law in Indonesia are still wedded to the death penalty. Therefore, as long as it's been disconnected the Court and clemency has been rejected, the executable can be run.

There is nothing to add to this. If there was 100% justice in courts I would gladly support capital punishment for murderers. But people (incl. judges, jury, police et c.) are often corrupt and greedy and making mistakes and neglecting their duties so there is no small chance to execute innocent person. In such case (in terms of revenge which is the reason why caspital punishment supportes are so agressively defending it) there should be also capital punishment for judges, police officers and prosecutors who have convicted innocent person and for lawyer who didn't do his best to defend his client if it was proved later that executed person was innocent. Or, maybe just make execution of innocent person equal with first-degree murder with appropriate punishment for those involved in it. That would be fair.

Otherwise it looks like:

- Robber broke in to a house and killed the old lady living there
- Execute him!

- Jury sent innocent father of three to electric chair
- They have to say "I'm sorry"

I don't see anything good in capital punishment, it rather lead to Arden criminal. Capita punishment does not teach any positive behavior it rather serve as a preparation for committing higher crime

You "Copy & paste" without citing a source. It was a reply from Mark Werner, Police officer for 45 years. Link here: https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-thoughts-on-capital-punishment

By this statement you actually think murder is the worst possible crime you could commit. Now when you say murder is this murder in self defense included?

I find in these sort of debates it's always the serial killer which has been proven guilty multiple times is the only way that capital punishment could be taken without there being any doubt about whether new evidence will arise. Although I wouldn't put it past our law system.

I think capital punishment should be applied when it comes to the position of a life-for-a-life(lives). In the sense that when someone is sentenced to death for committing a crime for deliberately taking a life out of sheer purpose for example, a serial murderer (there are some instances whereby the it was not all very blatantly deliberate), that same person should be put to the sword as well. Now what is the alternative reform, imprisonment? Who pays for these reforms and imprisonment, everyday regular tax payers money. I don't think is fair to the hardworking tax payer to "help" reform a person who deliberately took someones life. Aside murder, I don't see any other crime out there that warrants capital punishment. Just my opinion.

And in the many instances where "Moral upbringing" fails, should the parents be put to death? If not, how is that going to effectively address the murder rate, especially considering the many morally bankrupt regimes around the world?

This issue of Capital Punishment as defined by the Wikipedia "as a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime".
In this world we live in people will always commit crimes. But in my own views, some Law just needs to be established.
Firstly, It is not a yardstick that when people commit crimes and are punished by death sentence it will serve as a deterrent to others, no it doesn't work that way.
I have come to realise in life that no matter the set downs rules and regulations people will always violate, it is a constant in life.

Secondly, it doesn't mean people should not be punished by death sentence or whichever way.
in human existence, crime will always exist, and punishment will always exist but punishment cannot abolish crimes.
But the best solutions to all these is "Moral upbringing" a standard training that should be inculcated as an inherent characteristic in every individual, with that it will help the society at large.

"It doesn't matter if they re offend or not" - Really? You don't care how many innocent people get killed? In addition, sending murderers to prison leaves a breeding ground for more murderers and murders (as I've explained above). Furthermore, I don't know why you bring this into the equation: "If you kill someone premeditated then you should spend the rest of your life in prison. If you killed someone by self defense then many factors would have to be taken into consideration. Just because you killed someone that entered your house without your permission and was waving a weapon around doesn't mean you have to kill them. If it's a baseball bat for instance then he not likely to kill you with it and you wouldn't have to use lethal force either. It almost all self defense cases there was a better option", I am not the one having trouble to differentiate between murder and a justified killing.

In addition, capital punishment does serve as a deterrent to at least some level despite the skewed manner in which statistics are abused in this regard. Marxists always need a general crime wave in order to wage war against their enemies. They are too cowardly to declare it openly and fight like men.

Again, "show me a list of murderers who have truly benefited from prison sentences and added something of value to society?"

What if they are 6'6" and weigh 300 pounds and are swinging at me with a baseball bat? What if they are attacking a 5'0" female who weighs 100 pounds? Are you saying the victim is allowed to try to tackle them, but isn't allowed to stab or shoot them? So if the attacker is bigger than you, you just accept that you are getting beaten up or killed?



If someone breaks in to my house armed with a deadly weapon, I don't care what they want and I suspect they wouldn't be interested in having a conversation about it. They are putting the lives of my family at risk and I would retaliate as necessary to attempt to stop them. Thankfully, in the country I live in, the law would be on my side.

A baseball bat can kill if it connects. Although within a small space it's very hard to swing and guess what a baseball bat takes time to leverage back and swing. It's slow in other words and within the time they are swinging you can tackle them and disarm them. Police are taught this technique and a baseball bat is considered low danger because of this. A gun on the other hand doesn't take much movement to actually do the damage. A knife takes a little bit more movement than a gun but is much less than a baseball bat. Knives are a different situation although if you are trained you can disarm a knife wielding lunatic as the police do every day.

Killing someone even in self defense should be the last resort. Close combat which the majority of houses are a baseball bat is completely useless. Yes it can hurt if they jab you with it but its not going to kill you want way. they would need to swing back and then generate the force which also takes a split second.

A sword/katana or something like that would be a little different as you can't really tackle them and it's harder to disarm. But the majority of people invading someones house is looking to steal something and sometimes it's not worth the risk. If they want a tv give them a tv. It's better than killing someone and living with it for the rest of your life.

Completely agree with you to here.



Completely disagree with you here.

You can kill someone with a single punch. You sure as hell can kill someone with one swing of a baseball bat. If a baseball wielding lunatic breaks in to my house, the safety of my family comes first and I should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to protect them. If that requires lethal force, then so be it.

It doesn't matter if they re offend or not. It  doesn't change the fact that they've murdered at least one person which is justifiable to spend the rest of their life in prison. I'm against the idea of capital punishment and can't believe that some countries still use it when it's been proven to not work. It doesn't act as a deterrent because people are still murdering others and it doesn't always bring justice because innocents have been killed.

If you kill someone premeditated then you should spend the rest of your life in prison. If you killed someone by self defense then many factors would have to be taken into consideration. Just because you killed someone that entered your house without your permission and was waving a weapon around doesn't mean you have to kill them. If it's a baseball bat for instance then he not likely to kill you with it and you wouldn't have to use lethal force either. It almost all self defense cases there was a better option.

I would absolutely love it and start a campaign to say that murderers should not receive capital punishment, only the innocent.

Could you tell what will be your reaction if your close friend or relative will be falsely convicted of murder and executed?

Thank you for the merit received. Much appreciated.

In terms of my previous post, I've tried to give a tongue-in-cheek response while bringing over the point of view that others out there might have - people that are not as kind as some of us. You might think that I don't know what I am talking about, but I've spoken to hardened criminals in the past. They find a soft approach hilarious and stupid to say the least - and love playing the system to their benefit and at an expense to others.

Many hardened criminals have received life sentences - a ticket to free meals, free accommodation and the opportunity to murder again. In addition, there is no easy life in prison for someone who is not willing to join a prison gang. You either join them, get constantly raped or murdered. Regardless of why you are in prison, they will expect of you to murder - and if you refuse - they will murder you. E.g. this guy was convicted of murder at age 14 and received a 9 year prison sentence. He was exposed to murderers in prison and look at the result: https://youtu.be/vLkRA2pdBdE

Given reality - and not what is sold as an ideal system and/or pie in the sky - people who end up in prison for lesser offences have little chance of rehabilitation while murderers are around. They learn to become hardened criminals and many turn out murderers themselves. E.g. https://youtu.be/YsUs3tL_I0k

This is why I've stated previously in this thread: "The question we should rather ask ourselves is: "How many convicted murderers reoffend?"" And I could add: "How many convicted murderers help to turn others into murderers?"

In addition, show me a list of murderers who have truly benefited from prison sentences and added something of value to society?

I merited one of your previous posts, not because I agreed with what you said, but because you put forward a level-headed and well reasoned argument. And now you have completely ruined it by saying something as ridiculous as not having the death penalty is equivalent to giving citizens the right to murder. Sigh.

Moral of the Story: If you want free meals and accommodation in Babylon, just murder someone - even if it is a close friend or relative. They won't kill you for such hideous crime, because they are too scared that you might be innocent. Alternatively, don't murder someone and slave away for meals and accommodation for most of your life. In fact, don't murder someone and you will foot the bill in terms of meals and accommodation (and some more) for those who have the balls to murder. What is not to love of a system that upholds the right to murder.

This discussion reminds me the story if Russian serial killer Andrey Chikatilo who murdered more then fifty people. Before ho got caught there were two different men who were consiquently convicted and executed for his crimes. Are they not victims of social Killing Machine? In terms of victims' and murderers' rights who will be executed for murdering them?

I have a question for those who stand for capital punishment. If it  was your relative or close friend woh was falsely accused of some severe crime, convicted and executed? Will you still hold on to your opinion in that case? Many of those who are against capital punishment do so because of unfairly destroyed lives of innocent victims of failed (for any reason) justice. IMO, it is better to save life of hundred murderers than to execute one innocent person.

It may not be paradise but it's a surely better than some of the third world country prisons you come across there's some very nasty stories about how the prisoners get mistreated or even run the prison themselves. In the latter case that means the strong feed off the weak and the more serious criminals are likely running the place.

I would argue that some inmates don't want to leave prison. Sometimes it's because it's what they are used to and what they've grown up in. People often call it "being institutionalized". Some of course were sent to prison when the roads were much quieter and there was only a few cars around and the world being as it is right now with qualifications are needed for pretty much everything you can understand that they may not want to come into a society which they aren't used too and will get shunned because they have a criminal record. It's quite well documented that prisoners that have been released prison commit a crime just to get back in because they can't fit in. This was shown on Shawshank redemption. It may only be a movie but it takes it's influence from real life stories and if I recall it was based on a true story.

The innocent dead wont live again if the criminal is put to death. But the people convicted who were innocent will live if death punishment is not an alternative.


It is not paradise. They are still locked in and have strict rules to follow. I dont think there are many who would actualy want to spend time there even if the inmates are treated with respect and dignity.
But as the norwegian jail is focused on rehabilitation and not just punishment prisoners have a higher chance of returning to the society without commiting new crime.

Norwegian prisons are super nice. If there is any place in the world to commit a crime this is the place. Norway definitely has a different atmosphere than in the US.

Sounds kind of nice, but on another level it seems pretty messed up. Imagine some crazy dude comes into your house and murders your entire family. You happen to be out at the time so you don't get killed. The murder is then sent to a paradise campus for 25 years. That would really feel like... lack of "closure".

Punishing someone with the death penalty won't undo their crimes, and as I mentioned before, there is no evidence that it is a deterrent to future crimes.

And what about all the innocent people who are getting murdered? Should that alone not be enough to have the death penalty?

We know innocent people are convicted. That alone should be enough to not have the death penalty!

Also i do not think the ones comitting murder consider that they can be sentenced to death, just look at the fantastic land of the free.. What matters for crime is the society. And when put in jail how the conditions are. Being in a Norwegian jail is a paradise compared to the US, yet the amount of criminals is lower and the reformation is more succesfull. If interested see Michael Moore visiting Norwegian jail.

https://youtu.be/jDjISR5OHa4

Another approach: We get to record our choice on a blockchain in terms of whether we support capital punishment or not - A or B:

A. I support capital punishment - If I or one of my dependents get murdered, the one(s) found guilty in a court of law must receive capital punishment.

B. I don't support capital punishment - If I or one of my dependents get murdered, the one(s) found guilty in a court of law must not receive capital punishment.

This way all parties involved will get what they want on a case-to-case basis. The authorities will know how to handle each individual case. It could form part of Last Will and Testaments.

My opinion about the death penalty is, I agree because the person who has committed a crime despite saying will soon repent I am sure one day will repeat the same mistake for example stealing a gold shop and killing the shop owner, I think the death penalty is appropriate to be given to the suspect, but if the death penalty was given to someone who stole my neighbor's banana I think the death penalty is not appropriate. I think the death penalty is only appropriate for people who are criminals such as killing and threatening the lives of others.

Are all wars justified? Quite often governments go to war with other countries out of greed and it's an attack on their country rather than trying to save it's population. The only time that war was justified in recent times was the world war. People wanted to fight for their country because their family and country was under direct threat. The middle east war that the USA and UK have been involved in was iffy at best

With your statement about capital punishment being falsely accused and then giving capital punishment to those who falsely accused you is that the best approach? Give this scenario you were falsely accused and executed on the belief that you committed the crime. New evidence comes up that the person who accused you did it falsely. So let's execute them. Oh wait new evidence appears to have debunked that the person falsely accused you.

There we have it. No justice what so ever. Everyone involved in the case has now been executed. Only their families are left to grieve. This actually happens quite regular in minor cases (not murder) although it's not completely bonkers to assume that this could well happen and may of happened in the past.

My mistake.

I agree with most of the rest of what you have written. However, although its aim is to serve as a deterrent, the data suggest that it does not achieve this aim (assuming the validity of the data in the absence of any counter-evidence).

I agree the price is ridiculous, but it is what it is. Even the price of long-term incarceration is ridiculous, as is the price of anything when it is run privately and for-profit (see: healthcare).

And again I completely agree that life sentences can be a joke now, with murderers being released for "good behaviour" after serving only a fraction of their sentence. If you received a life sentence, in my opinion, you should be incarcerated until you die, and therefore cut the re-offending rate to zero.

However, I can agree with all those points and still disagree with the death penalty for the reasons I have stated before. It does not act as a deterrent any more than incarceration does, it is grossly more expensive, and it kills innocent people.

I was specifically in reference to the manipulation of data via stats. Sorry for any confusion, but I was not trying to say that data cannot be used to support factual arguments.

It is a misnomer to suggest that the aim of the death penalty is to reduce crime in general. The aim is to serve as a deterrent when it comes to murder, and perhaps most importantly, to make sure that a murderer doesn't have a chance to re-offend. In addition, there are various other factors beside capital punishment that play a roll when it comes to these matters - and it differ from state to state, country to country, etc.

Furthermore, if it is true that the "death penalty is more expensive than life in prison," then they're clearly going about it in the wrong way. And when you look at the data, you will see that not all murderers receive the death penalty in states that support it - only a small percentage. They've become too soft with them.

The question we should rather ask ourselves is: "How many convicted murderers reoffend?" E.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html In my personal experience in terms of where I am in the world, enough to have the death penalty re-instated.

It is also shocking to see how many who received a life sentence are already back on the streets. E.g. https://nypost.com/2013/04/28/record-number-of-killers-and-rapists-being-released-from-upstate-prisons-many-returning-to-nyc/ Scroll down on that page to see who we are dealing with... evil scum that I will not think twice to take out myself.

Sure, data can be manipulated, misreported and misrepresented, but you can't write off all data as non-factual, otherwise we would never have advanced past the bronze age.

If you have data that disprove any of my claims, I'd be keen to see them.

Let's ignore the emotional arguments for a few minutes (feelings of justice, revenge, etc.) and look solely at the factual arguments.

There is no evidence the death penalty reduces crime



According to FBI statistics, the homicide rate has consistently been higher in US states with the death penalty vs those without. Whilst we have to be careful not to suggest that correlation equals causation, the National Research Council report on the matter states "research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates."

The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison

"A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000)."

"In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty."

Source: https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/

The death penalty kills innocent people

Over 60 innocent people have either been wrongfully executed or released from death row in the US alone. And that's without even touching on the controversy of executing people with mental illness who may not even understand their crime, let alone the punishment.

In summary, you have a system that doesn't work, costs more, and kills innocents. There is no question that it should be abolished.

I couldn't agree more. If I was a murderer, I would rather choose death than life in prison, especially if it comes with hard labor. Not that I am not used to hard labor, but to have to perform it day in and day out under such conditions will certainly not be a walk in the park. Besides that, I am claustrophobic to some extent. In addition, I would refuse to be a burden on society. They either remove me from the equation or I most likely would have done it myself - after pleading guilty and giving the exact version of events, so that the families and people affected can have at least some comfort.

Is a life in prison that much better than dying?

Who says that justice or revenge is such a bad thing? There are some people that claim certain virtues are primitive and that we as humans must learn to overcome our emotions. Who can prove that they don't matter? It is my opinion that a lot of what people decide is moral, is rooted in our emotions. People like to think we are logical beings, but emotions are the true building blocks of our perception of morality.

The death penalty gives justice for family members. Knowing that the murderer is still alive out there is unsettling even if that person is behind bars. For the people that are sent to prison for less severe crimes, they can develop some of the bad habits of worse criminals. I heard somewhere that prison is basically crime school. If you spend time in prison you learn how to become a better criminal. You hang around bad people enough and you'll turn bad too. It is a psychological thing, you become who you hang around. Also it is one less person for your taxes to cover. I know that sounds callous, but it is true.

When I think about people individually I can sometimes empathize with people facing the death penalty and how much that would suck. Systematically it makes sense to establish it though when you think about the whole scheme of things.

My opinion on the death penalty isn't too strong, but I've weaned on the side of for it rather than against it.

Are all killings wrong though? Even when wars are started many people argue that it's still wrong. I'm not sure I agree with this opinion but it is something to consider. That also begs the question when is it acceptable to kill another. You could argue self defense but only a minute amount of cases actually require lethal force to make sure you are the one to survive.

The thing is people are getting sentenced to death when they haven't committed the crime and it comes out years after they are executed. This should be avoided at all costs but the only way of going about this is by actually abolishing it. If we look at some of the prisons around the world especially in Panama etc then the welfare of highly dangerous criminals isn't really something which is looked at closely and they live in horrendous conditions. Being falsely accused of a crime is bad enough to be sentenced to death is something else.

I would have to agree that a life sentence should be enough of a deterrent. Especially if you are in a maximum security prison. There's been studies on the effect of prison on innocent people who were falsely put in there and how it lead them down a dangerous physiological state so when people say doing time is easy then studies have shown otherwise.

I'm guessing you are referring to serial killers which are with out a down guilty. I'm not sure that a death sentence is still warranted though. Could you imagine living with yourself in a 4 wall cell with only your thoughts even if you were put into a cell for an experiment it would drive you to insanity.

I think you outline most arguments in your OP and address them.
It is a difficult question society needs to ask itself.

I don't think that death penalty acts as an efficient deterrent. Spending 30 or 40 years in jail, or even a life sentence, seems like a very good motivation to not commit a crime. I don't think that simply by adding more punishment we get better efficiency and I think statistics back this up.

Losing a person in our society, even if it is a criminal, still impacts us negatively. We benefit from every mind that is alive today, if for nothing else, to tell their story.

There is one type of situation where I am thinking that death penalty might be applicable and that is if a person in question really is so dangerous and competent to hurt others even if sent to high security prison. These situations are so rare however, so I don't think that this makes any significant impact on the decision.

I've been studying this subject recently and have had some heated discussions in the past about it with friends and the like. Recently though I've been looking at some polls which have been conducted and it seems that the vast majority of people actually agree with the death penalty. I think it would be interesting to have a discussion with the Bitcoin community on this as I tend to find that they are much more logical and open minded to things than the normal targeted audience that these polls are presented too. 

Quotes may be shorter than they are in sources to cut down on filler content and pick out the most important aspects.

According to the guardian[1] "China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and the US carried out the most executions in 2012. At least 1,722 people were sentenced to death in 58 countries in 2012."

I think if we look at all the countries there the most surprising one would likely be the US. Iran which isn't on the greatest terms with American currently shares a common characteristic with America in terms of people getting sentenced to death. In fact according to this source between 2007-2012 America sentenced 504 people to death whilst Iran sentenced much less (156).

I'm not at all defending the approach that these countries take and aren't saying that 156 lives taken isn't worse/better than 504 as this is another debate and hard dilemma.  I personally feel that the death penalty should be abolished worldwide and I'll go on to list my counter arguments to common statements about why the death penalty should remain. Although I think it would be interesting if we could have an actual discussion about this and possibly my view point will change.

I feel that these are the major points people seem to come up with is either for revenge, justice, if the crime is severe enough or as a deterrent for future criminals.

First of all I don't understand why revenge is considered a good thing. In most major movies revenge is normally seen being done by the 'good' guys and is justified just because someone is the bad guy in the movie. Revenge doesn't gain you anything and the only thing you are actually doing is lowering yourself down to their level. In my opinion revenge should only be felt by those who are personally affected by the situation and shouldn't impact the public at all and therefore I feel this is a poor argument when it comes to an argument for pro death penalty.

A common argument that I see is that if the crime is severe enough such as murder then it's perfectly acceptable for ordering the death of someone. I fail to see the logic here and I would invite anyone that has this mindset to explain your reasoning. I think we can all agree that to take someones life is wrong and there's got to be something chemically wrong or what ever for you to carry out the act but this also applies to sentencing someone to death. You are literally supporting a system which will put yet another person to death. Let's not forget that basic human rights and that everyone has the right to live. You may not feel like this is the case in more severe crimes but let's not forget that the amount of news articles which have been released after someone has been sentenced to death where new evidence has been discovered or brought up which proves that the prisoner was in fact innocent. Is this justice? Is the jury, court and executor now murderers too?

Finally, the argument that it will act as a deterrent for future cases. Well I think it's a common opinion that people feel that the death sentence is the 'easy' way out and making someone live with what they have done is more appropriate. Although this brings up the point of the physiological affects on the person who committed the crime and how that may affect them. So it might not actually act as a deterrent if someone knows they are going to die shortly after anyway. It could also be argued that it doesn't severe as a deterrent anyway due to the amount of crimes which have been committed since the death penalty has been abolished elsewhere in the world. 






[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world