Personal opinion, the death sentence should be reserved for the worst of the worst (murders who keep killing in prison, child rapist, etc.) As far as the prisons themselves, removed the cable TV and hot water. Make the prisoners sleep on metal beds/pillows with no covers. No mail, no privileges, nothing but that empty cell and a jump suit. after a few months of that, i bet that criminal will think twice about breaking the law when they get out.

I use to have the same opinion as you. Then I deployed and found a new sense for people who wanted to physically hurt, or kill me, due to their religious belief. My question to you is. Would you be willing to pay for these people to stay in prison if you knew they harmed anyone in your family? Cause anyone touches any of my nieces or nephews. I will be on a flight back home to beat the life out of the person. I am not an aggressive person. But taking advantage of someone who is weaker then you. Especially in an emotionally, mentally, and physically scarring way. They have lost their right to life when they took someone elses freedom, or life, out of lust or blood hunger.

No. The worse punishment is for these people to realize that no one will remember them when they are dead. No one will remember what they did. They sit in jail every year or two it will be brought up on the news. People will know they got to stay alive after [x-person] kidnapped then molested someones 3 year old child.

So, what if it was one of your siblings? What if it was one of your nieces/nephews (if you have them) or younger cousins?
Life itself is a complex system. How do they suffer in jail? Really. How does anyone suffer in jail knowing they have a chance of getting out for good conduct.
Two wrongs don't make a right. But two wrongs could determine what happens in the future. What if a future offender gets scared because as society we take peoples life for doing fucked up shit. Just like they did in the medieval times with public hangings. Just like Iraq did when they hung Saddam Hussein on public television.

Wow. Now you are telling us what we believe in. If you are going to mention an omniscient being. Don't tell people what they believe. -_-;

Life sentences in prison are expensive, yes. But shouldn't morality come before cost? Isn't a human being's life more important than money?!
I may not know any statistics, but I do know that a lot of people executed are innocent. In fact, the last man to be publicly executed in Britain was later found out to not have done the crime at all.
Sometimes I think that a lot of people are for the death penalty out of revenge. Revenge does not reverse what that person did. Nothing can change that.
I remember I was once asked if anyone deserves to die. The answer is that we have no way of knowing, because we have no idea what death involves. Some people believe in afterlife, some people don't, but there is no way of knowing for sure until you actually die. It's not much of a punishment if there is the whole heaven-paradise-afterlife which a lot of people believe in.
Also, some people can change. I'm not saying all criminals can, but some do. They deserve another chance, and if they don't change, then they can live the rest of their lives in prison.

Not for me, if it was personal, I would return the favor.

Speaking on a non religious side, we find Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest. Where do rights exist on this side of the equation. Everyone is equal and therefore can do anything to anyone at anytime. If someone decides to kill someone, then I feel it should be decision of the people who were affected by the murder to "right the wrong" and perform their own justice. If the killer can get away and escape the family's wrath, then so be it, they have just earned the ability to keep their life. Unless the family hunts him down until they die or he kills them first.

You're absolutely right. We shouldn't pay for pleasure for the criminals. However, I also don't think the criminal should die a humane death and rather let the people who were affected exact justice on the criminal.

What basic rights are these and where can I find a list of these wonderful rights that aren't written by humans themselves? I don't see why humans should be able to give themselves rights. That is quite narcissistic of us, don't you think? :P

Respect? In order to be respected you must first gain respect. Killing someone's family member is not in the ABC book of getting them to respect you. Unless they get you to respect them completely out of fear. Personhood? What about Animal hood? Humans are animals simply put. Humans naturally have all the rights of animals, which is Survival of the Fittest. Which means you survive by being superior to all else in one way or another.

Also, going on the assumption that all humans have "basic rights." Then why do we keep our fellow humans in cages for years at a time. Keeping a human caged up is like keeping a lion caged up. Eternally unhappy. Do we have the right to keep someone eternally unhappy rather than taking away the life completely?

Humans, by their very nature are selfish and narcissistic. We are all important in our own eyes. We defy all the animal laws and make all animals subservient under us. Family trauma for a murder does not affect the country over all. Why should the country gain benefits off the killer when the family are the ones the killer afflicted with sorrow and pain?

So, not only do I get to pay for their free vacation time in prison, but now I also have to allow them to walk freely without any more consequence? Also, they have not earned my respect, therefore they will not have it. Good behavior can be faked, especially if they know how the system works and if they know that they will get out by having good behavior. for the record, 60-70 year olds as you put it, can still wield guns and kill.

Yes, criminals are people. However, what gives people these supposed "basic rights."

Wouldn't be more expensive if families could execute the criminal in the way they see fit.

I love how you said a pedophile should be given the death sentence. A pedophile is one who is attracted sexually to children. A pedophile is not one who acts on those fantasies. When a pedophile acts upon said fantasies, this makes him a child molester/rapist. You cannot hold anyone accountable based purely on the thoughts they have.

I would hold your argument more credible if 30+years ago we had the technology we now have to determine one's innocence.

If a human touches a baby bird or a nest full of eggs, the adult bird in effect kills them by neglecting them. If a human adult neglects their child and the child dies, is this murder? Possibly even premeditated murder?

In order for you to make this assertion of "true evil" you must first be able to define good and evil objectively. Also, 15 years does not equal a human life. Clinically proven is also based majorly on the emphasis that humans are correct in their diagnosis. Humans, being flawed, makes this a flawed argument.

So the possible innocent ones have to suffer without the rights all the other innocent humans who haven't been convicted have given themselves to live by? Let alone the fact that humans have given themselves these rights and decide that they can take away these rights from the people that don't conform to the ways their society works in. It's like a "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree I will punish you" kind of thing.

Define morality objectively and then we'll talk about what is more important.

@ Tutela de Xaoc:

I define killing another person as morally wrong. Especially when that person has the potential to change, and might be innocent.

I understand that you feel murder is immoral. However, I need an explanation of why. Is your morality based off religion? empathy with humanity? agreement with what has been socially established where you live? etc. Where does your 'morality' come from?

I view everything living as equal. animals, humans, trees, etc. I also consider humans as animals themselves. Animals do not punish each other for murdering each other. Why do humans? If you disagree that animals do not murder each other...one only has to look at rivalling males and females, as well as alpha challenging. You can also view a queen bee killing all the potential queen bees before they can fight for themselves. Birds will kill their young if interfered by a human. Black widow females will eat their male counterparts after mating. Why is it wrong for a human to kill another human looking objectively at the meaning of 'evil'/'wrong'. That is the question I am asking you. Your personal/emotional opinion cannot be proven or disproven and therefore can only be used in speculation of what wrong and evil actually are.

Murder, of any kind, in my opinion is not 'evil,' but an animalistic trait that we hide within ourselves for the sake of separating us from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

But don't you think most people who go to jail are indeed guilty? I think it is rather rare that anyone who is innocent acually ends up in jail right? Keep in mind, we are talking about death-row inmates here, not the average convict (Yes, i believe the treatment of said criminal should vary depending on the crime). I just don't think people who went out and harmed others should have the same privileges as civilians.

I feel that killing another is wrong because it is such a serious thing to do. Imagine, a whole person's life just being taken away! I think it's definitely not something anyone should do lightly, or legally. In my opinion, bringing more killing into the world is not going to solve anything. It's quite difficult to explain exactly why I consider killing so morally wrong - it's just my opinion that it is.
Also, like I said before, we can not know if anyone truly deserves death because we have no idea what happens after death. We don't know exactly what kind of punishment death is, so we can not know if anyone deserves it.
All I was saying before is the cost of keeping people in prison should not be the issue here. The real issue is whether or not it is wrong to kill criminals, because I think that that is the issue which matters most.

Guilty by what standard?

1. So just because the majority (meaning not all) are guilty means the innocent have to suffer equally due to human error in justice? How can you justify this remark? Also, read the article below and tell me if you have a change of heart on the matter.

Drug laws and discrimination of women

2. Yes, the topic is regarding death row, but your statement is regarding average crimes and the prisons themselves. Unless you are implying that people who should be on death row should rather have a "couple months of living in a crappy prison" and then be free to decide if they wish to do it again rather than being on death row?

3. Officers harm civilians (civilian meaning a person not convicted and therefore not having been stripped of their rights), the press harms civilians with their speech, and politicians harm civilians with their decisions. Where should society draw the line of "harm" and why?

Animals do it all the time. What makes killing wrong? Even human religions support it in some way or another.

On the contrary, if enough humans were killed it would balance things out a bit. World population would be less, which would in turn provide more job opportunities and a more beneficial lifestyle over all by solving hunger and shelter problems as well. Just because you feel killing is morally wrong does not make it morally wrong as every human has their own set of morals they live by, and therefore may look at killing differently than you, yourself. It is okay to have an opinion, but to say that something should or shouldn't happen based solely off of personal opinion is not an effective argument and cannot stand alone.

Whether or not someone deserves death, as you put it, does not mean that killing, in and of itself, is wrong or a punishment. It is simply a survival tactic that allows for the continuation of humans to exist and is a completely natural action done by animals other than humans as well.

Since I have clearly explained that the argument you use doesn't work and I don't wish to be too repetitive, I will entertain your moral argument. Suppose we decide to keep killers in prison rather than kill them. This in turn, costs money, and forces other facilities to shut down and free the occupants there. This in turn, is doing injustice to the people who suffered from the now released criminals, as well as preventing the criminals from serving their dedicated time that was ruled on by society's standards.
This raises two very important questions.

1. How do we choose, in an unbiased manner, which criminals to free and which to keep?

2. How is this fair to both civilians, who the freed criminals have equal status to now even though said criminals performed an action out of choice that caused this status to be lost; furthermore, the civilians are unable to do what the criminals did and not be punished, showing more inequality between the criminals and the civilians; Also, how is it justifiably fair to the other criminals who weren't picked to be freed, even if they may have performed the same exact crime as the ones who were picked to indeed be free?

Life Sentence is worse. If a person gets the death sentence, then that's it. And what if they believe that there is an afterlife? Then, just before they die they wouldn't be afraid, but overjoyed depending on how they perceive to be the penalties in the afterlife for the crime that they committed.

In a way, if a person wishes to commit suicide, and they know that they will be given the death sentence if they do a certain act, perhaps that person will release all their pent-up rage and anger upon other people; then get the death sentence to release themselves from this world that they disdain.
However, if that same person would only get a life sentence, but not a death sentence, they would think twice before blowing up their anger on other people because they would end up with a worse life than they are in at present.

Plus with a life sentence, you have to suffer the prospect of not being able to 'grow' or achieve any goals/etc. In a sense that is what makes us humans, striving for greater things, obtaining more things, enjoying life with friends and family/etc. A person in jail is limited in that respect. Each day will probably be torture to them knowing that they can't achieve anything.

However, if in the future I were to do something bad that resulted in either death sentence or life sentence, I would hope for life. Firstly, because I do not logically believe there is an afterlife although I hope there is. As such, dying means you have no chance of living (well, that's obvious); but a life sentence still gives you a small, tiny chance of leaving jail. Perhaps not via parole, but perhaps because a war breaks out and an explosion allows prison inmates to escape; or some other such thing. In the end there is always that slight hope. Plus if you were allowed to obtain reading material, you could read stuff up.

The rate of innocents on death row (alive OR living) is 2.5%. Which, statistically, is negligible, and not "a lot."

whats the dif? if your sentinced to life with out parol then your more then likely going to die

It's a difficult question. On the one hand (the one I tend to listen to more), even though the majority of executed criminals are guilty of the crime they were executed for, there are a small number who are executed and were innocent. On the other hand, it's very expensive to house criminals and the money to do so comes from taxes; so we pay for the food, board, and medical expenses of criminals.

If I have to vote one way or the other though, I must say I am against the death penalty.

i'm never agreed with the death penalty. and for anyone who does i have one question for you, why do we kill people that kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

I don't think killing people is wrong in the first place. More need to die so that we're not so overpopulated :insane:

Personally I am against the idea of killing other people, simply because I believe that doing that makes us just as bad as them. It becomes an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth situation. Say the person on Death Row was a murderer, they are killed, therefore does that not make the person who effectively ended their life a killer as well? Even if they did deserve it, or it was done for the good of the community, the murderer was still killed, so shouldn't their killer die as well? Then it becomes a never ending cycle...If you think of it like that anyway ^^

Also, I'm planning on persuing a career of helping those in prisons to reform so they can stand a chance of release one day without re-offending. Cause of that I guess it makes me biased towards the whole Death row situation. I think that everyone deserves a second chance and should be helped to get that chance. Also, if they are guilty of a crime bad enough for Death Row, then having a life sentance without parol is worse, so shouldn't they have that instead of death? This'll sound really evil and such (at least it does to me XD), but making them suffer for what they've done, face the lives they may have destroyed and such, it would be a far worse, and more effective punishment then killing them, and those who administer the death (injection, hanging, shooting etc) would suffer less psycologically because they wouldn't have any form of death on their own shoulders, even if it can be justifiable.

But these are just my opinions and if others don't agree with them I'm fine with it ^^ It's just how I choose to view these situations, I'm not trying to make others see it my way either XD Just thought I'd put that there in case anyone thought that!

You always seem to make the most sense on here.

Anyways, the facts are there. People need to stop using the excuse that life in prison is better because of the chance of innocents. I'm not saying that there aren't any, but our jails are becoming overpopulated from what I once heard. (Fucking Obama even transferred the terrorist inmates from Guantanamo which I don't understand. To think I voted for this guy..) Also, I am very skeptical to the idea that a convict can change. I am for the death penalty, but I think that the US needs to not be so concerned about what is inhumane and not. I'm not saying go overboard or anything, but I feel that, say, a quick and simple execution like by gunshot would suffice. The whole lethal injection idea is just stupid and expensive. Why should death row inmates get a peaceful death?

edit:
Oh, and also (for you religious nuts), say a person is on death row, claims to be innocent, and is found out only after he/she dies, he/she's still going to heaven right? It is natural for a family to grieve the loss of a loved one, but in the end, we're all going to one of two places. I consider myself a Christian, but I disagree with a lot of the beliefs. I have my own foundation which my beliefs come from.

And anyways (BOT), it's like others have said before me, today we have the technology to prevent things like this from happening.

I am firmly against the Death Penalty. I feel that it is wrong. We have no right to condemn someone to death...no matter how terrible their crime might be. We can't play god with people's lives. And by murdering them, we're just bringing ourselves down to the murder's level. And there is also the fact that if the person who is sentenced to death was wrongly convicted of the crime...when their put to death, there's no way to fix the mess up. If a person is on Parole without bale, there's still an opportunity to let them out of prison when they are later found innocent. And I actually learned in one of my classes last year that it costs more to have someone on death row. So life in prison without parole actually is less expensive.

But how many of those people who are on death row do you think actually want to die?

The only reason our prisons are overpopulated is because the majority of the prisoners are ones who were put in jail for doing drugs.

I do believe that the death penalty should be inforced. but only for manslaughter, 1st-2nd degree murder. I beleive that the punishment should fit the crime. so if they killed someone, negligable or not, then the punishment of death should fit.

I do not agree with playing like god. I don't like it at all. but that person who committed the murder, decided (weither subconsciencly or not) to play with life like a toy. and that is unforgivable.

all life should be taken seriously, and respected. if not, what kind of chaos will this world disend to?

Do you even know what manslaughter is? I pity every single person who gets executed for manslaughter, because that's just absurd.

First of all, manslaughter can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing when being provoked, imperfect self-defense (using unreasonable force), and diminished capacity (somewhat like, but completely separate from, insanity).

Involuntary manslaughter includes manslaughter without any intent to kill. This includes vehicle accidents (i.e. a child runs out in front of your car and you hit him/her, or the weather is crappy and your car t-bones someone else who slid through an intersection and they die), criminal negligence, and assisted suicide.

It makes no sense to use the death penalty for manslaughter. Manslaughter isn't even a felony.

I'm a person who doesn't believe in "God," so this whole "playing God" thing really doesn't bother me.

Some people out there do really heinous crimes and need to be punished for it. I believe that if you take a life or many lives, then you should have your life taken away. If you think its okay to take multiple people from their homes, and cause them mental and physical pain over a period of time, you deserve to have your life taken away. I don't think that its fair for you to kill and torture people and then go to jail for it. Because its my tax dollars that is paying for you to have 3 meals a day, for you to walk around outside and play games with your inmates, for you to be able to sit and watch TV (even if its only for a short time).

Death penalty instead of life sentence. Some of them don't deserve it.