I think it depends on the situation. Cold blooded murder is definately wrong. However, soldiers can't be blamed in a combat zone. Also, if it is self defense then that is okay aswell, as long as proportinate force is used.
Violence should only be used for just reasons as a last resort!
Also if you kill people you forfeit your right to live.
Why? Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you no longer have human rights. If you are convicted of a crime, you should be able to be pardoned if the conviction turns out to be incorrect. With the death penalty, there isn't that option. Due to the relatively recent advanet of forensic evidence, numerous dead cons have been retrospectively pardoned in the face of new evidence.
1. It shouldn't cost as much as it does anyway.
Judges, police and lawers all need to be paid. Appeals courts are expensive. You can't really cut the costs of them without removing due process.
Maybe, sometimes it is good to end someone's life, to protect others. Or maybe, protect him/her against him/herself.
[/quote]Of course is wrong kill a people, even if it is a crminal, he should have a second chance or even a third. The people weren't born to be killed, a person has a objective, and it isnt be killed.[quote]
Now, You CAN'T keep giving people new chances. You just can't.
Maybe, sometimes it is good to end someone's life, to protect others. Or maybe, protect him/her against him/herself.
Personally, I think there probably are some crimes that are worthy of the death penalty. I just think that the risk of killing an innocent is simply too great. Not to mention the moral contradictions having capital punishment in a 'reformist' judicial system.
Depends what viewpoint you are standing from. Within society of course it is wrong for a "responsible" goverment to kill, and it just shows an ill of society that we have people who may need to be removed to provide safety. Of course, there is only the right and wrong that we create, so no, its not wrong at all, as there is only the will to live and protect your family etc. perhaps the goverment are only protecting their peoples interests.
Sadly the answer changes depending on which side of the fence you sit. Thou shalt not kill, or, thou shalt only kill if it protects you, or, thou shalt kill but we would rather you didnt.
Of course is wrong kill a people, even if it is a crminal, he should have a second chance or even a third. The people weren't born to be killed, a person has a objective, and it isnt be killed.
I doubt the people they killed got such thought, did they?
Appeals courts are expensive. You can't really cut the costs of them without removing due process.
It can be done. Due process in a proper manner is only as expensive as we make it. Appeals courts are higher than standard courts, and cost exponentially more, even though the same is being achieved. Due process is easily achieved in the lower courts for a much lower price.
In reality, it is much harder to find a man/woman innocent in an appeals court anyways, so why does it cost so much, when it's unlikely to succeed?
The government has all the right in the world to take somebodies life for doing ill to the society it is sworn to protect. Justice isn't a hotel for the rest of your life. If these were Colombian prisons we were dealing with in America, I would find the death penalty pointless, but in reality we are dealing with cushy pads for a very long time.
The death penalty is the only true penalty in our society. It sorta defeats the purpose with the whole cruel and unusual punishment thing anyways. The live the rest of their lives in a cushy cell, and die in a relatively comfortable manner.
Reign in the electric chair, please, and give them something to think about before the end.
Either way, neither is a proper punishment with the way we have them set up.
I think that it is wrong for the government to kill anyone, with the exception of people killed in battle. Anyway, the government has no right to kill anyone, if they want to punish them, just go with sending them to jail. If it's really bad, give them life without parole.
It can be done. Due process in a proper manner is only as expensive as we make it. Appeals courts are higher than standard courts, and cost exponentially more, even though the same is being achieved. Due process is easily achieved in the lower courts for a much lower price.
Lower courts are not eligible for cases as serious as the death penalty. Judges and lawyers used to dealing with minor misdemeanors are not suitably trained to deal with cases with as serious implications as the death penalty. Neither is that their area of expert law. Judges and lawyers who are qualified are the cream of the crop. A judicial elite, who are in low supply relative to demand. The price is set by the market, determinants being, total cases of murder and total number of highly trained proffessionals. Unless you are willing to spend exponentially more on furthering education or increasing the level of policing drastically in order to cut crime, these courts will always be expensive. And if you do choose either of the two options, you will incurr greater cost. So I can't really see a way round this.
