What do you guys think of it? Should we have it or no? Lol I might go to one of those demonstrations and hold up a sign saying "Give them liberty or give them death!" just as a joke.

I don't like it very much. Its basically repeating whatever crime the criminal committed to get it. And sometimes the convict is proven innocent afterwards, oops.

A good Qoute pretaining to this- "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the penalty that should be given. Whatever the person did to someone else should be done to them, in the same way. That's fair enough.

That's a shame. It's terrible when someone gets wrongly convicted. But it's like banning a whole practice just because it will be abused a few times. It simply doesn't make sense.

I've got to say, I don't really agree with that at all. If anything, the punishment would set the example so others would not do the same. That's called prevention.

I think this should be a states-only issue, zero involvement by the federal government. If certain key social issues were states-only, America would not be so polarized. Such as gay marriage, conservation, gun control, etc. Different regions of the country have different needs and when one area's needs are imposed on another, there is conflict, for those needs often are hurtful. Guns make sense in the countryside, but not in big urban cities. Gay marriage doesn't work in the Sunbelt or heartland, yet the Upper North is fine with it. It's common sense. Anti-Terrorism money needs to go ONLY where it is actually needed. That is huge, why should heartland states get so much money that places like NYC [just 15 miles away] needs more? If laws and aid were decided by regions/states, the US would function much better, much more cohesively, and with less unecessary tension.

Personally, I don't mind the death penalty, as long as guilt can be proved beyond beyond reasonable doubt.

You could have just said, "Personally, I don't mind the death penalty, as long as guilt can be proved beyond beyond reasonable doubt." This isn't a rant about states issue topic.

Killing someone is against the law, so why do we get to do it? Plus, people suffer more in prison then if their dead.

Death penalty is unjustified unless it is in the most extreme of circumstances. Anyone who does a crime that deserves the death penalty needs help. A rehabilitation program would be a much more humane way for the government to make things right.

I totally agree with you except for one thing: guns make sense in cities. If stricter gun laws stopped crime, Washington D.C. would be the safest place in the country. But crooks still have guns and the homicide rate has been among the worst in the nation for more than 20 years. Now I'll move on. :P

The federal government tries to take control in too many cases that should be the state's issues.

Let's see: the most extreme of circumstances... like killing someone else? That's extreme. I really don't see why you don't want justice to be given. Statistics show that 2/3 of people who commit a major crime and go to jail for it are likely to do it again.

"Anyone who does a crime that deserves the death penalty needs help". Exactly. Let's just spend more money and get deeper in debt. Really there are very effective private groups out there who do the same thing. While I agree that these people need help, the solution is not to spend more money! Sorry, I've been playing NationStates. :P

Capital punishment is just another messege of "its o.k to kill aslong you are stronger and can get away with it." Pro-capital punishment Goverments kill because they believe the convict deserves it. Well, how interesting since that is what many serial killers think about their victims. This is no longer a matter of who started it, since whenever someone is killed without necessity, its basic put cold blooded murder.

I am going to be honest here. Outside of soakers, I am abit of a Self-Defense nut and I train several hours a day to hurt someone brutaly if I am physicaly threatened. So I am not for soft treatment of dangerous individuals in a moment of actual danger. But when they are already in prison, murder is no longer ethical since there is no actual point other than cold blood lust. To disrespect one human life(Even a criminals) is to disrespect human life in general and thats all there is to it. And the fact that no other western nation that has capital punishment is disturbing, unless someone is a fan of how China and Saudi Arabia runs their prisons.

^Strongly agree. Also, and I know these are rare occasions, but sometimes the criminal may want the death penalty. Ins uch cases as terrorists, sentencing them to death might prove later to be a bad move, because it makes that person a martyr. :ph43r:

I don't think you understand the value of human life. How can you say that we should kill someone because we don't want to spend money to try and set their life straight? Imagine telling someone's mother that the prisons were too crowded so we had to kill her son/daughter.

Imagine what would happen if someone was wrongly accused? Yes, that does happen. There is no way to be 100% certain that someone is guilty of a crime. Think if you had been accused of killing your best freind when you had just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. As you are marched to the electric chair what's going through your mind? "I don't care if I die because otherwise the government would lose money on me." or "I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!!!"

I'm going to spare you my lecture on the value of life at this time.

As for extreme circumstances, I was thinking more like a victim escaped from the most secure jail in the country and there was no physical way to keep him/her from killing more innocent people.

I totally understand the value of human life. But certain criminals don't. The one and only purpose of the U.S. government is to protect life, liberty, and property. There are certain degrees of crimes. A small crime deserves only a fine. A larger crime deserves a little time in jail. An even larger crime deserves a long time in jail. The largest crimes deserve life in jail or the death sentence. The right thing to do depends on the circumstances. But when a person has purposly killed lots of people, putting them in jail for 20 years isn't the right thing to do. They will most likely go out and kill more people after their term is over. So I'm getting to this. When a person has done a lot of killing, they deserve either the death penalty or a lifetime jail sentence. The judges or jury will decide what is right. But people do a lot more wrong things these days. Punishment isn't working well. The death penalty may not be the solution, but something needs to change.

An eye for an eye would make the world go blind, it doubles the eye-losing rate.

Wouldn't preventing the cause of crime/murder be better than simply punishing? If people had better accessible/enjoyable things to do, or therapy, then there wouldn't be crime in the first place, and there wouldn't be any need for punishment.

Exactly.

You are right about the life sentense part. So there is no need for an execution. I think a serial killers won't get out anymore once convicted. Not unless the judge is out of hgis/her mind. Lock them up and throw away the key. 60 years of getting raped by a 300 pound convict or constant fear of getting shanked with a shive will be a more fitting verdict than capital punishment. At least the Law doesn't sink to the level of a killer that way.