i disagree with it. at the end of the day, suffering in jail for life is far worse punishment than being put to death. Plus, from a practical standpoint, it's literally more expensive to put one person to death than it is to keep them in jail for life
Just the other day, I was reading an article on how a man was put in jail for over 15 years for a crime he didn't commit. What if there was a death penalty? An innocent person would be killed.
...And what about those that get set-up?
The law and its judgements isn't always flawless too.
I'm 100% for the death penalty for people convicted of murder, only if the evidence is sufficient and/or they confess. I don't believe someone that can take another's life deserves the privileges of a bed, food or shelter like they'll receive in prison. Their is so much corruption in prisons and the justice system that anyone can get out after only a few months or years etc. An eye for an eye.
I think all the debating stems from a moral standpoint rather than an objective one. I'd compare it to people who feel like Humans shouldn't eat meat because 1.) We don't need to in order to survive. 2.) Humans aren't carnivores or omnivores naturally. Our biological and physiological make up isn't to hunt prey with our bare hands and struggle teeth
But, just like the death penalty argument, that's just a moral standpoint that we shouldn't kill and eat pigs, chickens, cows, fish, etc because there are a lot of things akin to human "nature" that we frown upon (that is in our biological make up) or live by (that isn't in our biological make up).
In the end the death penalty is a matter of your personal ethics, however, I don't think anyone would have wanted Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter) shown any mercy if he had lived.
No because sometimes innocent people are wrongfully charged and get killed. Also just dying is meh but being tormented by the thoughts of what you've done, the remorse they will feel is >>>>
False. its cheap to put a bullet on someones head or hang them.
I think anyone who kills another human being should automatically get death penalty
sure, but death penalty is done with lethal injection, plus the cost of all the court hearings that precede the death penalty to ensure the wrong person isn't being put to death.
I think all the debating stems from a moral standpoint rather than an objective one. I'd compare it to people who feel like Humans shouldn't eat meat because 1.) We don't need to in order to survive. 2.) Humans aren't carnivores or omnivores naturally. Our biological and physiological make up isn't to hunt prey with our bare hands and struggle teeth
But, just like the death penalty argument, that's just a moral standpoint that we shouldn't kill and eat pigs, chickens, cows, fish, etc because there are a lot of things akin to human "nature" that we frown upon (that is in our biological make up) or live by (that isn't in our biological make up).
In the end the death penalty is a matter of your personal ethics, however, I don't think anyone would have wanted Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter) shown any mercy if he had lived.
Wtf? Replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment would SAVE taxpayers over $125M each year.
hanging people is not cheap?? pushing people off a cliff is not cheap??
