Why or why not should the death penalty be allowed?

Answer 1

Yes of course! "Killing the criminal will not bring back dead people." Now, I ask, who has ever argued that the death penalty brings back dead people? I've never heard anybody make that argument in my entire life. When anti-death penalty people make this argument, it only shows that they have too little to argue with--that is why they argue against an argument that is never made. The only people I've ever heard the "won't bring the victim back to life" argument from are the death penalty opponents themselves. (More on this below.) "It is wrong to kill people, period." So people like Hitler should have lived? If you see a person killing people he should be allowed to live? You death penalty opponents don't believe this absolute statement, and you need to stop making it. "Having the death penalty cheapens life." No, having the death penalty indicates how highly we value life, and it shows how little we tolerate those who in fact don't value life. "The death penalty is legalized murder." This is where death penalty opponents try to make a legal argument and end up showing that they know nothing about legal arguments. Legal killing is not murder. Murder is a legal term to describe the unlawful taking of life. Get a clue, people: "legalized murder" is a contradiction in terms. "If it's wrong for people to take life, then it's wrong for the state to take life." This argument is so silly it makes me wonder whether the people making it are just plain stupid or hugely dishonest. They don't believe it, anyway. After all, it's wrong for me to steal money from people--so does that mean governments cannot tax? Can governments not impose and collect fines for traffic violations? It's wrong for me to lock somebody up in a room for years, so does that mean governments can't put people in jail? This argument totally ignores the purpose and nature of an action, whether it be by the government or by an individual. How can some people seriously compare cold blooded murder of totally innocent people with the death penalty as applied to somebody who has committed horrible crimes? They are not equivalent acts. "Innocent people might be executed." This is a good point, when it applies to innocent people. Nobody in his right mind believes innocent people should be executed. But when it comes to people who are unquestionably guilty, this argument doesn't apply. "We should not execute people because they might have had a bad childhood." Give me a break! This argument makes such a blanket assumption that it is insulting to people who have had unhappy childhoods but still don't go on killing sprees. "If you really want to punish somebody, use life in prison, because that's harsher than the death penalty." This is supposed to be an argument coming from people who proclaim their compassion? They are proposing what they say is a worse punishment? Death penalty opponents who use this argument show their complete intellectual dishonesty. It's also instructive to note that while death penalty opponents make this argument, they never seem grasp that "imprisonment won't bring people back to life." Or does this mean that the anti-death penalty crowd believes imprisonment will bring the victims back to life? Also, if it's wrong for an individual to kidnap and lock up somebody, isn't it wrong for the government to do it to? (Death penalty opponents never seen to address this argument, although it's very similar to their "if it's wrong to kill, then it's wrong for governments to kill" argument.) "It takes too long and is too expensive to execute somebody after conviction." The people who make this argument are, interestingly, the ones who seek to postpone the execution and make it drag on for years and sometimes decades! And, yet, the same people who make this argument are the same ones who propose as an alternative life imprisonment, along with the costs involved in that. http://dan_pressnell.tripod.com/deathpenalty.htm

Answer 2

No, because Innocent people could die when they had nothing to do with the predicament.

Another View In this day and age with all the safeguards (legal, scientific, social) in place. the likliehood of anyone being wrongfully convicted or either murder or terrorism is virtually non-existent. Murderers and terrorists who kill, SHOULD be executed

Answer 3

The Death penalty should be allowed. Suveys have proved that the majority of people think the death penalty should be allowed. The reasons why it should be allowed are:

It is cheaper to kill them, rather than keeping them imprisoned.

It is definite they can never commit another crime again as they will be DEAD.

The money which is saved because they face the death penalty can be used for education and more important matters.

Answer 4

The death penalty should be allowed because there is no other punishment that should be commensurable for any one who intentionally killed or conspired with the killer, secondly since the killer cannot reverse death to life he also deserve death.

Answer

The death penalty should not be allowed because mistakes can be made, and you don't want to hear, "Oops, we executed the wrong person." (Assuming science hasn't solved that problem yet.) Answer

An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.

Answer 5

With the new abilities of DNA testing, the death penalty should not be used. Many people convicted of a crime convicted of a crime he or she did not commit have been exonerated by DNA evidence.