I saw we didn't have a topic on this, and it just sprung to mind after seeing a comedian talking about it last night. :lol: Yeah, sometimes serious topics can be brought up from unlikely sources.

I myself am undecided, I really don't know what is right or wrong in this case. What do you all think?

I hate it,we don't need to stoop to their level.What we need is rahabilitation.If
your crazy anough to kill ten million poeple,then banish them to the moon.

I'm for...*hides*

Not in the way that we kill everyone who commits a crime, but to some...

The death penalty is generally not a good idea. There is no turning back to rectify mistakes, and it probably is not a particularly effective deterrent against those who would be brazen enough to commit the crimes that warrant the death penalty.

If you shoot someone, someone should shoot you back!

For first degree murder cases, it should be allowed. I for one, believe that the US sniper needs to be punished appropriately. Why keep such criminals in jail, wasting away tax payers money when they'll never change? Being soft on wrong-doers only encourages other to follow in their footsteps. However, I don't agree that the death penalty should be given to those who smuggled drugs ( I can't remember what the limit was), or less major things than planned murder. But for the most part, I'm for it. Call me harsh, but the death penalty works.

The problem is that it is difficult to ascertain whether the death penalty actually works without having a baseline for comparison.

It could be possible to compare two countries that are similar but have different stances on the death penalty (eg. Canada and the United States). Unfortunately, different countries ultimately have different environments with numerous other variables, and comparisons would be speculative at best.

I agree that some criminals do probably deserve harsher sentences than jail time. The problem with the death penalty method is that there will inevitably be "collateral damage". In a society that places great importance on life, it has to extend its principle to everyone equally in order to avoid destroying innocent life.

Imprisoned criminals no longer pose a direct threat to society, so there is no need for society to extinguish some of them for the sake of revenge.

(I know that the issue of prison breaks will arise. This can be solved with other methods such as permanent isolation of any individual deemed to be extremely dangerous. Keep this individual locked permanently in a cell, and what harm can come from it?)

I don't think we need to stoop to their level. They should rot in jail (and be some people's -coughs-) But these people shouldn't be released or find a way to get out of jail like most do.

They should stay there. Case settled.

I don't care if they behave or not. That doesn't change what they did in the past.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, they don't rot in jail as we would like. I for one was stunned when I heard that prisoners had better dental and medical plans than some free but poor people. The doctors and dentists like taking care of prisoners because the government is responsible for the bills, but they'll turn down those who don't have enough insurance afraid that they can't pay. I think that's really unfair. When I pay my taxes, I don't want it to go to support the likes of murderers.

Maybe it's not so much on punishing the person, but to set an example. If people are scared of breaking the law, they might think twice before doing it.

I'm used to having strict laws and all, so it just gets me annoyed when the law somewhere else is so lenient as to not mete out death penalties. Those who get judged under 'temporary insanity' can go to the mental institution, and when they're 'sound' they can leave without any jail time at all! Even if they killed in their 'mentally unstable' state.

All I'm saying is that I don't value all lives; I'm not that good. I'd feel terrible if someone I knew was murdered and the criminal was still alive and well. Even a lifetime in prison is not justice to me, at least not for a first degree murderer or serial killer.

Morals aside, I would be all for death penalty... if it's in any way effective. As far as I know, it isn't very effective in curbing crime rates or anything. So, no. Not for it.

I get so angry at the government for letting out all those crazy people just because they got paid enough money. So I guess money is more important than someone's innocent life that you KNOW he'll take when he gets out?

In general from what I have seen here,just as an observation,
when a criminal kills someone,they kill them,the the third person
kills the second,then the fourth kills the third,it doesn't end.

The process will continue until someone decides killing is wrong
and step in front of the choas and kill themselves by stepping in front
of all and says stop.its like cancer,it may be treated,but if left untreaded,
the killing spree spreads.So death is wrong.

What you should do is give them a sex change and send them over to Afganistan and see how they like that.

I find it interesting how you assume that all dangerous killers are men, Angrod. :whistle:

And on-topic, I'm against. ^_^

Not sure on this one. Rehabilitation rarely works, and the Death Penalty isn't much of a deterrent, clearly. Then again, when the thought of someone getting away with torturing, raping, dismembering and then eating a person (men, women and children all)...

see the difficulty there?