Should there be a death penalty?

[Mike4Freedom]

If every citizen in the US carried a firearm with them a lot less murders and rapes would happen. You and only you are responsible for your own safety. If you are in the vicinity of someone who is being murdered or raped go and defend them with your weapon.

This is the solution to this problem and is why carrying a firearm is one of the pillars are liberty. It is the main pillar if you ask me.

Why does not everyone do what I mentioned above? It is due to government slowly taking away our rights to do what is stated above. Government is to blame for this problem. In typical government fashion the death penalty only treats the symptom not the cause.

It is your duty as an US citizen to protect yourself. Only you can stop yourself from being murdered or raped.

 

[mtj458]

It is because we don't go out intentionally trying to kill guilty people. I don't play superman with my SUV by trying to run over guilty people even if they deserved it because, what if I hit someone who was simply running? The difference is the intent to bring justice. Killing an innocent person is not justifying at all, which defeats the purpose of justice. Killing someone accidentally while not trying to bring justice to any particular situation is morally regrettable, but one is not morally held responsible (which is different from legally responsible). It has to do with deliberately killing someone versus just an accident. A person is not morally guilty for accidentally killing someone, but, if they try to kill someone who is innocent, then they are morally guilty for it. They should have confirmed the truth beforehand.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by your wording. Are you saying if you have 100% confirmed the truth beforehand then it is okay to execute the guilty? If I get you right, your saying you aren't morally responsible for accidentally killing someone, but you are for purposefully killing someone. If that right then your last sentence confuses me.

 

[Working Poor]

But wouldn't killing each other make us more like animals?

Only if we are going to eat them. I am pretty sure most animals only kill to eat or to defend their young or territory. Animals have better ethics than humans IMO.

 

[JohnEngland]

Capital punishment is murder.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I believe in the Biblical principle of restitution.

The Noahic covenant put it very simply: "If you shed the blood of man, by man shall your blood be shed."

But I very much agree with Ron Paul's reversal on the death penalty. Our government is corrupt, racist and evil. Although I agree in principle with the death penalty, I absolutely agree with Ron on a moratorium until our government isnt so blatantly evil.

 

[erowe1]

I voted yes. But that's with the qualification that it can't be done by any state (i.e. any institution that governs people by conquest rather than consent). It has to be done at the local level in a community of people who have agreed to the rules that they govern themselves with.

 

[pcosmar]

No. Not at this time. The present "justice system" is utterly corrupt, and beyond redemption.
Were it scrapped and an honest, equitable and transparent system in it's place I might reconsider.

 

[Melissa]

I am against it and for those of you using stats... if the death penalty was a deterrent then it would seem that the states with it would have lower murder rates because people would not want to have that punishment so they would not do the crime...but guess what.. states without the death penalty have lower murder rates so don’t think the argument can be made that the death penalty is a deterrent at all

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

[LibForestPaul]

No. One is only allowed to take the life of a sovereign individual under threat to ones one personal property (i.e. ones life). A prisoner does not pose this threat while in custody and properly secured.
This means if the prisoner, while in custody, poses a threat to any other individual, his life may be take if required.
This also mean, a prisoner, falsely convicted, will not have his property (life) forcible taken from him by mistake.

 

[Slutter McGee]

Robert James Anderson kidnapped and murdered five-year-old Audra Ann Reeves, in Amarillo, Texas on June 9, 1992. Anderson told police that he kidnapped Reeves as she was returning home from playing in a park. He brought her inside his house and unsuccessfully tried to rape her. He then beat, stabbed, and drowned Reeves, then stored her body in a styrofoam ice chest. Her body was found that day by a neighbor throwing out trash. Anderson was identified as the person who discarded the chest, was apprehended by police, and confessed almost immediately.

Anderson said he committed the crime after a dispute with his wife of eight months. The Associated Press quoted Anderson as saying, "The whole day revolved around the fight. She stormed out of the house and said when she returned she didn't want to find me."

Anderson was sentenced to death and was executed by lethal injection in Texas on July 20, 2006.

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

 

[pcosmar]

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

Perhaps so. But how does a corrupt system decide that?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/#
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

 

[erowe1]

I may be using the appeal to emotion fallacy, but I don't care. Some people deserve to die.

Slutter McGee

Those emotions are there for a reason. You were made in God's image and have an innate sense of his moral law. You're right, some people deserve to die.

That said, there's not just the abstract question about whether or not there ought to be some kind of death penalty, but also the practical question of how to enact it. And I think there's something to be said for the notion that it would be better to forgo our duty to put to death those who deserve it than to delegate that responsibility to the state.

 

[agitator]

Like so many other issues, the death penalty works in theory, but not in practice.

- the power to kill is too much power, and it corrupts.
- when corrupted, it can be used politically.
- innocent people are often executed, and that can't be reversed.
- like a lot of our justice system, it is not administered fairly or evenly, certain groups are targeted.
- due to the legal system, it is often more expensive to execute than to leave in prison.
- the Justice system should be rational and impartial, not a system of vengence.

There are some people that need to be permanently removed from society. Life in prison is the best option we have.
-

This. Should not give the State that much power.

 

[mtj458]

I am against it and for those of you using stats... if the death penalty was a deterrent then it would seem that the states with it would have lower murder rates because people would not want to have that punishment so they would not do the crime...but guess what.. states without the death penalty have lower murder rates so don’t think the argument can be made that the death penalty is a deterrent at all

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Come on, you have to be able to see the flaw in that argument. Do you not go to the hospital because the death rate is higher there? It could easily be that higher death rates influence the states to use the death penalty or they could both be caused by a third factor.

 

[Elwar]

This is about the only issue that I refer to my religious belief on. Jesus taught us to forgive. Killing someone isn't exactly forgiveness.

They should be forgiven, but they need to be kept from society for the rest of their lives. Just as a matter of keeping society free of people who are willing to violate the NAP to that degree.

I also believe that drivers should be jailed for murder if they kill someone, though not necessarily for life.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

you can say the same for incarceration. the unsavory after effect is a person is generally less able to fit into society after he is locked up then before. prison is a society in of itself. you are just removing people from your society and putting them in someone elses society.

Yes, prison needs reform. Those who would otherwise be executed should never be mixed in with those who will be released. And if the system is so incompetent, we probably can't trust it with meting out death.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

To me in such a case I don't want to pay for the person to be in jail. As horrible as murder is I think at some point if someone is not deemed safe enough to be part of society for actions against others it is far more reasonable to be rid of them at the lowest remaining cost to the rest of society.

In reality, the lowest remaining cost is often life in prison.

 

[Heimdallr]

The death penalty really isn't that great. Not much of a deterrent, and I don't support the state killing anyone. It's also pretty reckless. You NEVER know what kind of evidence is going to turn up, and ONE innocent dead is too much.

 

[erowe1]

Come on, you have to be able to see the flaw in that argument. Do you not go to the hospital because the death rate is higher there? It could easily be that higher death rates influence the states to use the death penalty or they could both be caused by a third factor.

There's also the fact that most of the states that do have the death penalty only execute a relatively small percentage of their convicted murderers. My gut tells me that a consistently applied death penalty would be a significant deterrent. We just don't have much data out there to test that hypothesis.

 

[Melissa]

I am a criminal Justice major and no dont see the flaw. Most murders are done in the heat of the moment so to say that the death penalty is a deterrant there has to be a criminal that thinks hey if I commit this crime then I might die so the states without the death penalty would naturally have less murders but since that is not the case it can not be said that the death penatly is a deterrent at all. Death penalty is pretty much revenge "the eye for an eye" thinking but for someone to say that it deters crime there is NO evidence to even come close to suggesting that. And have no clue what you are talking about with the Hospital analogy.