[thesheriff443]

Does the fact that we keep murders alive, sentence them to life that does not mean they will die in prison.

Does this make the world a better place to live in?

Does not killing them make us a better person.

Would you support the death sentence being brought back.

Would the money that we spend on murders keeping them in prison supporting monitoring them after release be better spent on the victims families.

[Beso]

I would support the death sentence after a long period of incarceration first so they can dwell on their actions.

[smudgie]

I have no problem with the death penalty, but am against hanging.
My biggest concern is sending someone off that was innocent.
Unless there is 100% no doubt they committed the crime and not a possibility of a fit up or mistakes then it doesn’t sit well with me.
But putting someone to sleep humanely for murdering someone then I am all for it, providing the proof is beyond any doubt.
I don’t believe it makes us just as bad for taking their lives as they had a choice to kill or not, their victims didn’t have that luxury.

[The Slim Reaper]

The death penalty is pointless and barbaric.

[user104658]

Does the fact that we keep murders alive, sentence them to life that does not mean they will die in prison.

No, life sentences usually don't mean dying in prison unless it's multiple life sentences.

Does this make the world a better place to live in?

Having murderers in prison? I would assume so.

Does not killing them make us a better person.

Yes.

Would you support the death sentence being brought back.

No, or at least only in VERY extreme circumstances.

Would the money that we spend on murders keeping them in prison supporting monitoring them after release be better spent on the victims families.

I don't think money really helps victims families very often to be honest. Regardless, we should support the families of victims anyway.



Murder is a very broad-ranging crime, I think you're painting with pretty broad strokes here. There's obviously a pretty big difference between someone who has killed one person in say a revenge killing, and a serial killer who has targeted innocent people. "Kill all the murderers" seems pretty reckless.

[Livia]

I used to support the death penalty... until I studied law and saw how fraught with danger and opportunity for mistakes.

In my opinion a life sentence should mean, until you die. There'd be no Internet, TV or other luxuries for whole life prisoners unless they earn them. Any jop they did would have to benefit society as a whole, even if they're only walking on a treadmill to add to the National Grid.

[Denver]

Not all murderers are evil people, some do it to survive.

i only agree to a death sentence if they are clearly unhinged and 100% guilty

[Northern Monkey]

No.

The state having the legal power to kill its citizens makes me uncomfortable.

Mistakes and stitch-ups happen.With death there’s no room for appeal.



Terrorists killed in a war zone or during an attack i am not uncomfortable with being killed.

[Tom4784]

Murdering someone for murder is just dumb and hypocritical.

We are meant to be better than those we judge but responding to blood with blood doesn't make us any better, it makes us the same.

[Tom4784]

Also, the whole 'it costs money to keep them alive' argument holds little weight when you consider that, in American states where the death penalty is a thing, it's cheaper to keep someone alive for 60 (that number may be off but I'm pretty sure I read that it's around that) years than it is to sentence someone to death. There's a lot of litigation, appeals and due process involved with the Death Penalty, as there should be.

Putting someone to death isn't the cheap option.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes we should kill people, not to punish or deter but for the families who are left behind. Killing them is not murder it is the best scenario for those who are alive.

[Tom4784]

Killing someone in cold blood with the intention of doing so is very much murder, LT. It's basically the definition of it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Killing someone in cold blood with the intention of doing so is very much murder, LT. It's basically the definition of it.

their blood would not be cold until after they died. and its not murder in the same way prison is not holding someone against their will etc etc

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

their blood would not be cold until after they died. and its not murder in the same way prison is not holding someone against their will etc etc

Nope, still murder. You can't twist this around LT. What you are endorsing is straight up murder.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Nope, still murder. You can't twist this around LT. What you are endorsing is straight up murder.

if it pleases you so

a bullet in the back of the head and then incineration - quick no fuss and cheap to implement

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Killing someone in cold blood with the intention of doing so is very much murder, LT. It's basically the definition of it.

true, and murderers rotting away in jail is a better punishment for them


also if we take matters into our own hands and kill these criminals ourselves we could end up in jail

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

true, and murderers rotting away in jail is a better punishment for them


also if we take matters into our own hands and kill these criminals ourselves we could end up in jail

what if we kill them and dont tell anyone?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

if it pleases you so

a bullet in the back of the head and then incineration - quick no fuss and cheap to implement

Yet still it's murder.

[Alf]

"Let him have it, Chris"

Derek Bentley was hanged for saying those words.

His friend Chris Craig shot a policeman dead after he said those words.

When Bentley said "Let him have it Chris" did he mean let him (the policeman) have the gun or let him have a bullet?

Obviously Bentley was wrongly hanged in 1953.

40 years later in 1993, Bentley received a posthumous Royal pardon. And in 1998 his murder conviction was quashed.


It's cases like this where the death penalty fails. So as much as I'd like to see evil monsters put down, it's for the best that they're just locked in cages for the rest of their days or until new evidence proves them not guilty.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Also, the whole 'it costs money to keep them alive' argument holds little weight when you consider that, in American states where the death penalty is a thing, it's cheaper to keep someone alive for 60 (that number may be off but I'm pretty sure I read that it's around that) years than it is to sentence someone to death. There's a lot of litigation, appeals and due process involved with the Death Penalty, as there should be.

Putting someone to death isn't the cheap option.

Not to mention it takes years, even decades, for a lot to move through Death Row so this idea that the death penalty is just tossing murderers into a fiery pit and rinsing your hands is ridiculous.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

if it pleases you so

a bullet in the back of the head and then incineration - quick no fuss and cheap to implement

Except, it's not cheap and it's not quick.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except, it's not cheap and it's not quick.

are you referring to the American legal system?

[bots]

We could remove their brains for scientific research and then keep them alive on life support .... win/win

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

are you referring to the American legal system?

Are you referring to no legal system and a form of vigilantism?

What about the people wrongly convicted? Them being murdered is ok on the off chance that someone who gets shot is also a murderer themselves?

[Crimson Dynamo]

A Japanese argument

This is a rather quirky argument, and not normally put forward.

Japan uses the death penalty sparingly, executing approximately 3 prisoners per year.

A unique justification for keeping capital punishment has been put forward by some Japanese psychologists who argue that it has an important psychological part to play in the life of the Japanese, who live under severe stress and pressure in the workplace.

The argument goes that the death penalty reinforces the belief that bad things happen to those who deserve it. This reinforces the contrary belief; that good things will happen to those who are 'good'.

In this way, the existence of capital punishment provides a psychological release from conformity and overwork by reinforcing the hope that there will be a reward in due time.

Oddly, this argument seems to be backed up by Japanese public opinion. Those who are in favour currently comprise 81% of the population, or that is the official statistic. Nonetheless there is also a small but increasingly vociferous abolitionist movement in Japan.

source: bbc ethics