Hi
i think its been done a few times, but theyre all really old threads

• is it ever acceptable to use the death penalty?
• even on the most brutal physcopathic killers?
• does it void our basic human rights? or would you be no longer entitled to them if you are convicted of a crime where the puishment is death?
• when it fails? what can be done?
• is it really a detterent?

last year china alone killed 7000 people, few if any of which received fair trials.
eastimated 10000 people are exectuted world wide each year

I am of the opinion that if you can prove, beyond all doubt, that the person is guilty, then the death penalty is appropriate for crimes such as murder, rape, or child molestation.

While I doubt it will be a popular opinion, I believe that you void your basic rights when you choose to murder another person, and thus no, your rights are not violated.

It should never fail, because it should only be administered when there is no doubt of guilt.

Yes, it is a deterent,

I think death penalty is appropriate if you have excellent proof. If you put a psychotic killer in prison for a long time he will go more crazy and might kill more people when he is released. Having life long prison time is a waste of prison space.

As others have said, as long as it can be proven without any second guessing, then I believe it is right.

I see the death penalty as an easy way out, unless we allow a harsh way of death again (I hate lethal injection, it would be great to see firing squad or electric chair come back in to be the norm for murderers). Life in prison really makes an impact on somebody, but it's also a waste of tax payer's money to sustain scum rather than to just execute the pieces of shit. I guess I prefer the death penalty.

i think it's right but only for murderers

we all have got to die sometime.

As many have said, I believe it to be justified should there be irrefutable proof that the suspect in question committed the heinous crimes they're being accused of. No point in the tax payers sustaining someone that deserves to be six feet under.

While I agree that any person who chooses to rape or murder an innocent person deserves a painful death, I'm more concerned with it being cost effective. The way I see it, the quickest and easiest method of execution would be the return of the guillotine. It's virtually impossible to screw up, and doesn't cost a whole hell of a lot. The person dies, the person experiances a good amount of fear before dying, and the tax payers don't waste money paying for 3 doctors to decide if the anesthesia is strong enough for the lethal injection.

I think the death penalty should be used on murderers, child rapists and others who commit serious crimes, as long as it is clear they are guilty.
Use a cheap method e.g. shooting, and there will be less problems with jail overcrowding and reoffenders.

No, death penalty doesn't kill the worst offenders, it kills those who aren't able to properly defend themselves merely because of financial issues. I believe the 200th innocent death row mate was released a few years back.

i vote yes.
alot of people deserve it and whats the point of throwing someone in jail? its a waste of space, id rather die then spend time in jail.

The only problem with saying that it's ok if we have irrefutable proof [which I do agree with, btw] is that it's debatable whether there is ever such a thing as irrefutable proof. I mean, in all cases where people have been sentenced to death there has obviously been what was, at trial, considered to be 'irrefutable proof' of their guilt, or at the very least the balance of evidence was strongly tipped in favour of their guilt. And if some of these decisions have since been proven erroneous by advances in medical science/technology then I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that we are far from having full-proof methods of verifying a person's guilt, and that it is therefore irresponsible to sentence someone to death who could quite easily be proven innocent a year after their execution.

Wow, I'm disgusted at the Texan mentality of most of you.

You cannot prove beyond doubt that an individual is guilty of the act he is accused of. There is always room for doubt in every case. No exceptions.

You cannot void your basic human rights. These are the rights that are granted to you from birth and are meant to be recognised by every judicial courtroom worldwide. To install capital punishment would be violating our basic human rights.

This is self-explanatory. While the murderer may have committed homicide he is still entitled to his human rights, therefore he cannot and should not be executed because some people believe in an "eye-for-an-eye" approach to these situations. No one could possibly argue it humane.

That's point one.

Trust me, there's not much else you can do with the extra 20 cents you save from the total tax you pay. Holding individuals with life-long convictions would not cost you more than a dollar I guarantee it. You pay virtually nothing to keep the murderer within prison walls granted that prison keeps to its limitations of food, water, sanitation, exercise and shelter to provide basic human needs. Any further than this is providing luxury to convicts in which case becomes a waste of the taxpayers few cents. It is in actual fact more expensive to kill a prisoner.

If your prisons begin to overcrowd, I would begin by questioning and addressing what kind of ethics and moral values your society holds, who holds it and to what degree it is valued. The answer isn't to build more prison space for more prisoners but to avoid sending people to prison through social means. Promoting good behaviour and responsibility as well as respect and emphasis on human values. Of course there's none of this in the United States nor in much of the western world.

Of course, gaol is there to serve as a rehabilitation facility by trying to make you think about what you've done wrong and why it's considered wrong in the eyes of the community. How many people actually spend their time thinking about the wrongfulness of their crime, however..

If you were going crazy in prison you wouldn't be released in the first place. And of course for your version of poetic justice, a good proportion of lifelong prisoners end up committing suicide eventually during their sentence.

There are numerous records that support theories that the head actually continues to live moments after the blade cuts through the neck and decapitates it from the body. Therefore this method isn't really humane, as they would have you believe in 18th century France. The guillotine is quite the sadist manifestation of execution. You would have to end up stitching the head to the body anyway for the funeral so that's just unnecessary cost in itself. You may as well support hanging and watch the victim soil himself when he drops and the rope tightens. While we're at it, why not bring back crucifixion and observe the stigmata along the road to Rome?

I had to include this because I don't see the point in invoking fear into the criminal moments before his sentenced death. Why did you write this?