I do not believe that the death penalty is wrong. I believe that if the government introduce this act then there would be lesscrime taking place in the counttry. Why should these heartless persons eat taxpayers money.The family member of the decease is still feeding their relative's killer. I once heard a man seh "mi kill a man and mi still alive and a eat good food inna prison"". This is a perfect example why the death penalty should be put in place.

If you do not give punishments for people who commit crimes then let them out and keep killing us or use our money to get thier own food. So we should punish them by the death penalty.

I heard a good quotation once, "If the death penalty is not a deterrent then we have simply killed a guilty murder, if it is we have stopped some murders from happening." That was a paraphrase and thus was more eloquent than I said it. The point is still good though. I am not certain that it is a deterrent and have seen no overwhelming evidence that it is, but so what.

Also, people need to understand that killing and murder are different. Killing is the simple act of taking life. Murder is the taking of life against societal standards or laws. This is a distinction that is often overlooked.

i am actually writing a paper on this very subject. When debating this subject you should ask yourself 2 questions: Does the Death Penalty affect the murder rate? and Is it right for an innocent man to loose its life because a criminal felt it was right? I am for the death penalty. Believe it or not if we were to abolish the death penalty then america would end up paying more taxes that you dont get back in tax returns just to support these criminals. Are you ready for that?

hey BridgetteTellsItLikeItIs... i've got a answer to ur question of "You kill a person for killing someone to show someone else that killing is wrong?"

People who have killed people should serve the death penalty because they took a life and must pay for it with their own.

If someone killed your mother or father, brother or sister, would you not want that killer to die? You'd by lying to yourself if you think you'd forgive that person.

I do agree that the death penalty costs way to much, however. And as far as lethal injection goes.. wtf do we sterelize the damn needle?! But a perfectly good solution is to take the murderers out back and shoot them. No need to waste money on murderers.

one might argue that the death penalty is in fact murdering another and therefore stooping to their level. This is an outrageous statement. Its like saying putting theives in prison is 'stealing' them from their families, and therefore making the gov theives too.

Well said.

First off, it is much more expensive to pay for life imprisonment than the death penalty. According to the Natural Rights Philosophy, if you violate someone else's unalienable rights (life, liberty, and property) you are liable to lose one of your unalienable rights. The Natural Rights Philosophy may seem a little irrelevant to us today, but the founders of the U.S. used it as one of the seven founding sources for the principles of the Constitution the Constitution (Natural Rights Philosophy, Judeo-Christian Tradition, British Heritage, Colonial Experience, Classical Republicanism, the Iroquois Confederation, and one other that slips my mind right now) and, as you should already know, the Constitution is THE law in the U.S., therefore, we should pay attention to the sources that were used to make it. The Natural Rights Philosophy is not the only source that supports the death penalty, though. Classical Republicanism can also be used to support the death penalty as Classical Republicanism focuses on the common good of the people and executing a possibly dangerously violent individual can easily be seen as protecting the common good of the people. The death penalty should not be seen as a punishment or an example, but more like a means to protect the people, like putting a violent dog down.

Bushsupporter, what I meant by "like they were nothing" is that they gave them to innocent women for no reason other than the claim of others. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by BridgetteTellsItLikeItIs:
You kill a person for killing someone to show someone else that killing is wrong?

That doesn't make sense and it's just not right.

Anyway, keeping someone for life in prison is cheaper than paying for them to be put to death.

No, you kill a person because taking a life means you forfiet your own.

And your claim that it is cheaper to keep someone alive than kill them is actually a lie. Research it, you will see. Besides, even if it were ture, it doesn't matter. Dirt roads are cheaper than paved roads, it would be cheaper to get rid of the military, it would be cheaper to shoot illegal aliens than allow them to come into this country and live/be deported. Clearly we don't always do the cheaper thing. And since when did liberals become concerned with government overspending?

Horseartist: While I agree with you on the issue of the death penalty, I would like to point out that despite the lies in the history books and most notably Arthur Miller's play, only 18 people were killed during the Salem trials. This is certainly 18 too many, but not the number that you described.

quote:

You kill a person for killing someone to show someone else that killing is wrong?

No, it just show that heartless killing is punishable by death. If the people who get the death penalty are as monsteruos and dumb as they are, they won't understand that killing is wrong, because killing being wrong doesn't hurt them. But the death penalty does.

People who are worthy of the death penalty are dumb (I hope that there is no one on here who I'm affending). If they have commited as bad of crimes they have, they are most likely going to get caught. And to people as crazy as these, prison doesn't mean anything. in there mind, they still got away with murder.

Hey, Bridgette, be thankful you don't live in the time of the Salem Which Trails. They gave out death penalties like they were nothing.
I don't know if you have of this one tribal group (I'm having a mind blank as to were they live) who has a very interesting system. You see, if someone inthe tribe kills someone else in the tribe, the family of who ever was murdered is given time to grieve for that person. At this same time, the guilty person is found, acussed, and put in a prison type thing as the family grieves. Then, after a year of grieving, a justice ceromony is held. In this ceromony, the guilty is tied up, blindfolded, an put in a river. Then, the family has a choice. They can either sit and watch as the person who killed the family member drowns. Or they can swim out into the river and rescue the guilty person, who then is forever in debt to the family. Interseting, isn't it?

You kill a person for killing someone to show someone else that killing is wrong?

That doesn't make sense and it's just not right.

Anyway, keeping someone for life in prison is cheaper than paying for them to be put to death.