Debate: Capital punishment

Should capital punishment exist? If not, why? If so, in what forms and for what crime?

Guess I'm the first one to take a shot at this.

I personally condone it, but with limitations. To begin with, I believe in and agree with harsh punishment such as Hammurabi's code. An eye for an eye is a good approach to punishment for crimes imo. I also believe that if you punish everyone the same way and the harshest way, that it should (in theory) prevent other people from committing that same crime. It's a sacrificial lamb approach to solving a problem, but it should work. Now, I can't say for sure whether or not it would work, but knowing the punishment for a crime sure scares the hell out of me and would prevent me from doing it. Now, on the flipside (in the case of murder), killing someone won't bring the other person back or really bring any real restitution. But, by setting a precedence that people won't put up with the said crime, people will be less likely to commit the crime if they do not want to receive the harsh punishment.

So, that aside, I believe that captial punishment should be allowed and a possibility in any case of murder. I'd also suggest it for cases of underage rape or sexual abuse. There are some states in the USA that have laws that allow for this, but there aren't that many and the cases are few and far between I believe. But sexual abuse of underage people should never be allowed and is a severe moral offense I think is punishable by death. On a side note, I think the fact someone is sorry for what they did or fall under the clinically insane category should be taken into consideration. But in the case of being sorry, I don't think it's a good excuse. You can't take back what you did and you shouldn't have done it in the first place. You knew it was wrong, but you did it anyway and violated somebody else's life and rights in the process. Sorry just isn't good enough.

On the whole, I think capital punishment is a just way to deal with crimes that take the life of another or seriously cross the bounds the moral code. Though I couldn't guarantee that it would prevent crimes, I believe it would considerably drop the number of crimes of the sort committed across the board. But that's just me.

Is it? I'd presume just feeding them for the rest of there lives would work out far more expensive let alone all the other costs that must come into play.

That's the only point for killing them in my eyes - why should the public pay for them to keep living?

I believe myself that it's wrong. And in this day and age we shouldn't still be killing people as a means of punishment. Stick them in prison. Force them to work and earn there living while in there.

1) I can never condone the unnecessary killing of another person. If someone is in custody and not risking the life of somebody else, killing that person is therefore unnecessary. Capital punishment is therefore an inappropriate method of crime prevention.

2) "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", is something I do not agree with. I also do not agree with punishment for the sake of punishment. Judicial outcomes should therefore serve the purpose of crime prevention and not punishment.

3) On an practical note, in the vast majority of cases, capital punishment has the worst affect on those left behind- friends and family of the victim. And if it's punishing the person you're interested in, surely a life in jail is worse than death.

The bottom line- I believe the mere premise of "justice" is an outdated idea and not relevant in the 21st century. Punishing someone purely in the same of "payback" for a crime has no place in the modern day. Instead judicial action should only be carried out for the purpose of crime prevention or returning property to its proper owner.

Again, I would suggest like creepy that it would in fact cost more to keep someone alive in prison for like rather than just execute them on the spot. Which is why I'd suggest a reform to the appeals process where you can't appeal more than once or only for a certain amount of time. You are convicted. Most the time, people are guilty of murder and the cases are few and far between where the person isn't guilty. Once you have established guilt, get on with the sentencing and punishment. I'd say on the whole, execution would actually be economically better than life imprisonment. Life imprisonment will end up costing taxpayers more than capital punishment. If you put it in those terms, I'm thinking more people would side on the capital punishment side unless you take ethical and moral beliefs into account.


It's not the fact you have the person in custody the prevents crime. It's the fact that you are sending a message with capital punishment that the crime won't be tolerated and may be punishable by taking the offenders life. What better threat is there than death? Death seems like a pretty good crime prevention tool to me. Life imprisonment is fine, too, but it's so much more costly in the end, especially the longer they spend in prison. If you don't like eye for an eye, than I can't persuade you on that. But punishment doesn't have to be an eye for an eye, only equal to an eye for an eye. Instead of taking an eye, make the person pay for the surgery to get a new eye. That would be somewhat equal. And the judicial system isn't really about crime prevention. That's the legislative side essentially. The legislature enacts laws that the judicial side rules on and interrupts. The judicial system deals with what has already happened, not always what will be. They can give an interpretation for future reference, but that is the extent to which they provide crime prevention. The judicial system deals with finding the truth of the matter and then deciding on suitable sentencing afterward. On the last point, I'd think that killing the person would be much better, if not negligible, for the victim's family than letting him live in prison with all expenses paid for the rest of his life. That's just me, though.

For the very last remark, why even have a judicial system. As I stated before, the judicial system is in the business of finding justice. And don't tell me justice is outdated. I'm sure you have felt wronged at some time in your life and have wished that the person who wronged you would in some way get dealt with for doing so. That is justice. And it's not payback either. Justice and vengeance are not the same thing. Justice is the right thing that should be done. Vengeance, or payback, is getting back at someone for the sake of getting back at them. Since not all prime can be prevented, the judicial system has a place in modern culture in seeking justice for those who have been wronged. I think the judicial system is more about justice and punishment rather than crime prevention. Leave crime prevention to the legislative and executive branches.

I'd argue the opposite. I think by far America is a much better place to live. Like you said, I can't necessarily back that up without stating facts and figures. But what I can say is that there really is no country in the world quite like the United States. We have so many freedoms and rights as opposed to much of the world that it's unbelievable. Sure, Europe might have a couple things we don't have like health care and a common monetary system, but I believe the United States is quite well off in its own right. Again, I'd like to stress that just because other nations don't have something that we have or have something we don't have doesn't mean they are necessarily better because of that. And of course crime won't be off the chart because you don't have the death penalty. The point is that having a death penalty should, in theory, stop people from wanting to commit murder. The worse you make the punishment for a crime, the less likely someone will be to commit it, or so it would seem to me. Take for example this. Say you get caught shoplifting at a grocery store, but all that happens is you have top pay a $10 fine. What if you get caught and the fine is $1000 rather than $10, or you have to give 100 hours of community service for what you do. Doesn't that make a difference in your minds? The harsher you are in punishing an offense, the more likely people will be to stop and think before they act. Imo, the punishment should fit the crime. And if you are consistent in punishing criminals the same way for the same thing every time, there should be, in theory, less crime/a decrease in crime. Makes sense to me.

I will agree you are right about that. The fact is that if someone really wants to do something (such as kill a person), and they have a mind to do it, they will do it. There's really no stopping that. If you are caught up in the moment and aren't thinking clearly, then it won't really matter what the punishment is. Hopefully, the punishment will get people to think before they act. But again, if you aren't thinking clearly from the start, then the crime is essentially unavoidable or unpreventable. The fact we have such a high murder rater doesn't necessarily reflect the punishments and crime prevention we push, but more likely the culture, background, and upbringing those people who commit the crime come from.

Im an american and i live in australia. I think that both countries have their pros and cons.

As for the death penalty. I would agree with it ONLY if the person(s) did a serious crime (mass-murder, terror plot etc..). If it's the only logical option after you have considered all possibilities, then yes i condone it.

Cheers, dafin0

There's only one reason why I can't agree with the death penalty - new evidence, especially DNA, shows up all the time to prove the condemned to be innocent, and if we kill people that could be innocent, that's a terrible crime in itself.

Edit: "In for life", really should mean you're in for life. Not any of this 25 years crap.