Personally, for the vast majority of situations - actually, all situations, I am against the death penalty. With the possibility of false convictions or being used to kill off opposition (or gay people in some places), it's horrendous. With the fact that dead people can't help us figure out how to prevent pedophilia, it's pointless.
But then again there are some major suck in the world and sometimes it would seem nice to just see the back of it. On the plus side we'd have less people, and the world is overpopulated. Or would we? Populations tend to rise dramatically after wars, like people are having 10 kids to counteract all the death. So mebbe the families of death penalty recipients have more kids than average? I don't know but it's an interesting thought.
What about you? What do you think?
Well you are young. Usually if someone starts saying "well technically" You can bet they are young. You are right about one thing You seem to value someone just because they are breathing and happen to be human. I DO NOT. I also think it IS MORE humane to give them the option of painless suicide than long term solitary. One thing you seem to be missing about my point is that I am not for it in all instances. Only the ones where there is NO DOUBT and heinous. In the American system different crimes require different levels of proof. For murder it is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I personally think that to qualify for the death penalty it should be guilty beyond any doubt. That is a much higher level of proof. You can disagree with me that is OK. I have plenty on my side. That is why we have the death penalty.
The death penalty is necessary for people like murderers and rapists and terrorists. Especially in cases where other have seen them commit the crime: there will be no false convictions. Those people only make the world worse for everyone else, and are rarely of any use to society. Killing them, at least, will deter others from doing things similar to what they have done. Also, it would cut down on the cost of feeding, caring for, and containing all of these dangerous criminals that are not contributing at all. Some people actually commit these crimes in order to be put in jail; it's far better than being cold and hungry on the streets. That will decrease once people start being killed for these offences.
As for what someone else said about how we would be just like them if we killed them, we would not. They have cut someone else's life short or ruined it for little or no reason. We have a perfectly good justification.
Killing them, at least, will deter others from doing things similar to what they have done.
It doesn't seem to be working. The US has a far higher murder rate than several other countries, and yet you are one of a very small number of countries with an active death penelty.
Also, it would cut down on the cost of feeding, caring for, and containing all of these dangerous criminals that are not contributing at all.
Doesn't work. The US judicial procedure, involving appeals etc while someone is on death row, is actually more expensive than if you were simply to lock them away forever. In the case of appeals, there are often several dozen cases, involving paying lawyers, and judges, and police and witness experts etc. In short, it's very expensive.
It is only expensive because we make it so. It doesn't have to be expensive. It isn't the killing that is expensive it is all those appeals. People start out life with value. They loose or gain value with their actions.
We have a ludicrously high mis-conviction rate. Please tell me that you wouldn't want to CUT DOWN on appeals?
My reason for being against the death penalty is a little religious, so I apologize if I offend. I also realize that my argument contains holes in it, but as Whitman says, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am vast, I contain multitudes." It bothers me that we, as humans, are condemning other humans to die. I understand that they have committed some horrific crime, but what if the wrong person was convicted? What if their only crime was loving someone of their own gender (I'm looking at you, Uganda)? Then you have to think about the person who initializes whatever method the locale uses, I mean, what kind of mental status do you have to be in to consciously know that you're going to kill someone? Then there's cost. It costs about $2000 for each lethal injection, they use two to kill a person, and then they have one or two on backup. After all that's said and done, look at the message the government is sending. It's okay to kill someone, but only if the government is doing it. What kind of dystopian society are we living in?
Anyway, I'm sure everything that I've said has been said before, but I just wanted to make my two cents known.
Because we are doing it for justice and to a worthless person.
Some people deserve to die. But in the world we live in today, and based on how much it costs (and how long it takes) to kill someone, not to mention how goddamn often we get it wrong, we should not execute people. Just lock them up and throw away the key
Yes but I saw on a documentary show called "Lockdown" that those inmates who acted inhumanly outside and have nothing to loose act inhumanely inside. They just have nothing to loose what else can they do to them? Solitary confinement is to inhumane in long term use so what do you do? For different things that cops or the govt itself does has to have different LEVELS OF PROOF. For instance if a cop stops you on the road he can't just search your car unless you give him permission. If a police dog alerts on the outside then he has PROBABLE cause to investigate and search your car. The level of proof is probable cause in this case. My point is that for different crimes the level of proof is different. A lot of people don't know this. Right now, in the states, the level of proof for murder is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Which is why we have made mistakes. I think that in order to receive the death penalty the Govt should HAVE A LEVEL OF PROOF OF BEYOND ANY DOUBT. That is different from reasonable doubt. I also think the number of appeals for no doubt cases. That should keep down the cost.
I don't get your point. If we execute them, then sure, they have nothing to lose. But if we just lock them up, then I doubt it will have the same effect as imminent death.
Your penultimate sentence seemed to be the one you were building up to, but you left a word out. I'm assuming you it would be "should be reduced" or something...