Death Penalty

**~~ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8~~** · January 04, 2010, 10:12 AM

Is the Death Penalty ethical? Please provide a reason for your vote.

It is if the person commits a serious crime;

Murder (especially of children or the elderly)
Rape (especially of children)

and so on. Otherwise, for lesser crimes, I don't believe so.

**boofhead** · January 04, 2010, 10:14 AM

IMHO yes, it is ethical. If the law is laid down, and some dog bastard chooses to ignore it, may the law come crashing on his head.

**~~Arch-hereticK~~** · January 04, 2010, 10:19 AM

No, no-one has the right to kill another person, especially not the government. Are there cases where state-sponsored murder is acceptable? Of course, but it should be kept to an almost absolute minimum.

**basics** · January 10, 2010, 06:02 AM

" No, no-one has the right to kill another person, especially not the government. Are there cases where state-sponsored murder is acceptable? Of course, but it should be kept to an almost absolute minimum."

Arch-hereticK,

Not according to the Laws of God. But most societies aren't governed by the laws of God, rather the laws that they instituted themselves, even though they may well appear to be as God's. That said and being one who has certain doubts regarding capital punishment there is an answer that will take the responsibility away from society and place it fairly and squarely on the perpetrator, thus alleviating the anguish of the population as a whole.

Firstly, them that commit murder must receive the full weight of the Law. That is that life means life. Secondly, if that person does not want to spend the rest of his or her life in prison then give them the choice of ending their own life by lethal injection. This can be applicable at any point in their sentence. So if they cannot do the time they have the same option they gave to their victims. Therefore the onus is taken from society and put on them.

Indeed I would go as far as to say that there should not be any sign of a hope that they will enjoy being incarcerated apart from daily exercise. They should be fully aware that they will never see freedom again even to the point of disallowing the comforts of home to be there that they should enjoy them. Perhaps such a thing would be a deterrent to the yobs that kill for fun. Anyhow society would be absolved of blame or reproach.

**boofhead** · January 04, 2010, 10:31 AM

A weirdo in Tasmania had the right to kill 35 people.

That's a lot of people.

So why is that guy still alive? He's eating 3 meals a day at taxpayer expense.......

**Tacitursa** · January 04, 2010, 11:41 AM

Punishment should always be decided by the victims or the victims family. I think it would work really well. Facing your entire victims family and having them choose whatever punishment they wish. It would cut crime alot more than your typical goverment execution.

As it stands criminals know its either lethal injection or prison and they can think about it for aslong as they want. Not knowing what will happen to you and how bad it could be will make you think about doing the crime alot more.

I think its ethical because its human nature and desire. If someone

s with you or your family, you want to

them up and in my opinion you should be allowed to. If anyone ever rapes or murders any of my family i will never let the goverment decide ill just kidnap the person and make them regret it.

**Copperknickers II** · January 04, 2010, 12:05 PM

No death penalty. Killing is wrong, and killing a killer is still killing.

**Gaidin** · January 04, 2010, 12:08 PM

I got no problem with killing, strictly speaking. Let's talk about how murder is wrong and then spend 10 pages arguing about whether the death penalty is murder.

**Helm** · January 04, 2010, 01:12 PM

The only thing I have against it is the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

**Corvis** · January 04, 2010, 02:14 PM

I think the death penalty ought to be an option for the most serious crimes. Violent rape, premeditated murder for example. It isn't just a moral issue for me; It's a question of order and social stability. If someone deviates from the social boundaries in such an extreme, yes I believe they should receive death since they have proven incapable of following the social contract. Not every human being is capable of rehabilitation, and is simply a waste (not to mention an insult to whatever victim or victim's family) for them to remain relatively comfortable and taken care of.

But, like others, I see the possibility for injustice on the accused if they are sentenced to death and are later found to be not guilty. I'm not 100% on it, but for the most part I think the death penalty should be carried out on criminals incapable of rehabilitation.

**Groundtotem** · January 04, 2010, 02:18 PM

I voted no for the simple reason that someone is bound to be accused and sentenced wrongfully for a crime they did not commit. I also think that killing someone is wrong even though if you're killing a murderer!

**~~Arch-hereticK~~** · January 04, 2010, 02:26 PM

Killing a serial killer is absurd in my opinion, but so is keeping him/her in comfort. The study of these lunatics (while vast) is woefully incomplete. Killing what we don't understand is no way of furthering a civilisation. If we can truly understand what makes these people act the way we do then maybe we can stop them from becoming a threat to society.

**CtrlAltDe1337** · January 04, 2010, 02:28 PM

Yes, its ethical, depending on the situation. You wouldn't kill a guy for stealing a loaf of bread, for example. But if someone commits 1st degree murder, its very ethical to inflict punishment...capital punishment.

**administrator of yackady** · January 04, 2010, 03:25 PM

saying its costing money to keep people alive in prison is a very ignorant arguement
in america with all the appeals its actually more expensive to execute than give a life sentence
I think killing should only be done if the person is a threat to you (basically in war)
a defenceless prisoner isnt, so killing them is wrong

**MaryPoppinCaps** · January 04, 2010, 03:35 PM

While I would never kill a person, if you kill my loved one, who knows what I would do then.

I generally believe in "eye for an eye". If someone kills someone and takes away their right to life, then they forfeit their own right to live. I can understand extenuating circumstances and I'm not gung ho on even killing killers, but I think it is what they deserve. The death penalty should only be reserved for extreme situations where most alternatives can be ruled out depending on the crime. Yes, they should attempted to be rehabilitated, and yes money may be an issue, and yes an innocent will eventually be treated wrongly by the justice system...but I cannot get past someone killing a loved one - taking away their life and happiness - and still being alive, even if it's life in prison. I don't think we should pay to keep them alive when they are so willing to take life away from others.

**~~ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8~~** · January 04, 2010, 04:03 PM

I think you have to mix it up. If you kill to much, Death doesn't mean much then, but to much life imprisonment and then people will get off to much.

**Kjertesvein** · January 04, 2010, 04:08 PM

There is something about the state and the option to judge life that I absolutly find no taste for. The answer is no.

What 'you' do on your spare time is up to your sanity.

~Wille

**Ima Farmathar** · January 04, 2010, 04:20 PM

it is wastefull, humans are expensive, it is stupid to just kill them, ever herd of slavery, see that is more productive than just killing them

**Ó Cathasaigh** · January 04, 2010, 04:21 PM

How about hard labor? Chain gangs? Spending your life sentence living in a tent in the bayou's of Louisiana? These things have gone by the wayside, and I personally would like to see a resurgence. Prison sucks, but there are worse fates that some deserve.