The debate "Is the death penalty appropriate - for any crime" was started by
August 14, 2018, 8:30 am.
By the way, SaffronSHAM3 is disagreeing with this statement.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 45 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Aaronr12 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
SaffronSHAM3 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Aaronr12, sanghi12, Blago, TheNewHuman and 21 visitors agree.
WhiteCaller, SilentArg, TheCommunist, Debater1127, SaffronSHAM3, MrLibertarian, Aniket12345, AGustafson and 37 visitors disagree.
in addition to prolonging their punishment, theres always the opportunity to reverse if we ever find out they were innocent.
the death penalty fails on all counts
it's also far more expensive
Thats a great point mr. Neveralone, i completely agree with it. It makes complete sense, also because the state has the right to take only that which it can grant. Anything other than that is a cardinal sin.
people die. by killing them you a) stoop to their level and b) make the punishment quick. if ur looking to punish someone would prolonging it not make more since than a quick end? and that's if they don't want to die never mind the ones that do.
So u think young jihadis who suicide bomb themselves, are afraid of death?
People are way more afraid of death. No one wants to die especially if they are young.
Mr Aaronr12 watch ur tongue lest I cut it off.
And no i would not want anything else than what the court decides for the miscreant. The judges know law and what is justified, better than most of us.
Mr.Aaron suppose u were raped by by your househelp , what would you have wanted to happen?
it's more punishing to let them rot. death isn't by itself bad. it's an event we have to go through. but being forced to live in prison for the rest of your life would be quite the punishment don't you think?
So if your mother was raped and murdered you would not want him executed?
I feel that however heinous a crime may be,giving a death penalty is not justified.I feel that a better and more humane solution would be lifetime confinement. The government has right to take only what it can reinstate,and life can only be given by the Almighty. Taking lives imbalances nature. And what if person might change after a few years. It would not harm to let the person lead a decent life if he/she has understood the error of their ways. Of course the crimes commited by the convict cannot be undone but by taking a life the government is committing a crime itself.Lifetime imprisonment
is better in many ways. It gives the prisoner a chance to change(they can be released before their time if they show good behavior). It also saves the government from having blood on their hands. Both life imprisonment and death penalty provide the same solution ie. to prevent the prisoner from committing more crimes. Its just that one method is more humane than the other one.
I think not.
1. if the person is guilty, life in prison is less costly for us, and more of a punishment for them.
2. if the person is found innocent, we can release them and maybe try to compensate.... but if their dead, theres no going back. and quite a few were exonerated after or shortly before their deaths
so it's too light, too costly, and too final for any crime.
unless we have an unapologietic fanatic caught red handed carrying out a mass murder with absolutely zero doubt of his guilt.