I am against the death penalty, for the reason that we can't be 100% sure (for some crimes). So as long as there is even a small possibility that the criminal is innocent it should not be applied.
But what if the criminal is 100% guilty? Should it be used?
Against. Death penalty is not a deterrent, any more than other penalties, because people committing crimes don't believe they'll get caught (or they wouldn't be doing the crime in the first place). Plus, the state grants the hearing of waaay too many appeals in death penalty states, for fear that the ultimate punishment will be mistakenly carried out wrongfully, and the state will be to blame. All human life is sacred, and hope springs eternal that as long a person is alive on earth there is still a chance of repentance and reform (not to say that the reformed should be relieved of their consequences). The state must uphold the law it expects its citizens to uphold, insofar as it can still act to keep citizens safe. That is, the state should not murder, any more than citizens should murder. The state should, however, be permitted to contain dangerous convicts to protect its citizens for the duration of the convict's punishment.
Interesting...but would someone as tainted as say....Stalin or Pol Pot have a 'sacred life' left?
Hehe good point I'm not really a fan of death penalty, but I think it's mainly because in France it's not in place anymore... I don't know, killing a murderer isn't it to act like he did? Maybe he deserves to die, but killing someone has never been the solution...
I have been looking at other peoples comments and I kind of agree with them.
The death penalty isn't going to teach them a lesson. If you wanted to teach them a lesson then keep them in jail forever. They won't learn if they are dead, sure it will scare the other criminals but wouldn't you be scared of life in prison?
Well...there's no point of learning a lesson when the rest of your life is behind bars. Pointless, it defeats the purpose of jail if it's life imprisonment.
