Is the death penalty a violation of the human rights?

Answer 1

it depends on how you look at it... would you want the person who killed the person to pay for what they did or let them live in jail where all you do is sit and be lazy for the rest of their life

Answer 2

Yes: The death penalty brings justice to those who commit crimes worthy of it. For example, if one murders seventeen people, (s)he deserves to be put to death. If one respond by explaining, "No one deserves to die!" they have to think about the victims.

No: Putting someone to death is like killing insects. You don't solve the problem permanently. You have to use a psychological methodology that will persuade people to not to commit crimes that would result in the death penalty. Also, there is a possibility that the evidence against them is wrong. You can't bring the suspect back to life, can you?

Neutral: If the person harmed other people, then yes. If not, then no.

Answer 3

That is one of the big arguments in the system now. Many believe that it is inhuman and against human rights. Other believe that if someone has killed, they should be killed in return. It is a very personal position and will be argued for many years to come.

Answer 4

Well, many people still believe that the execution of murderers is not humane. Although we have tried to decrease the pain of executions throughout the years but many believe that people still experience a lot of pain. The lethal injection method which is used today for most executions is supposed to be painless. Thiopental Sodium which is supposed to render the person unconscious may not fully work and therefore still allows the pain of the other two drugs. Therefore since they are unconscious they can't express the pain that they are feeling even though they are suffering.

Answer 5

By all logic, it is a legal variant of premeditated murder. It does count as murder as it is a forced death. Human beings are restrained and forcibly stabbed with a needle. This also counts as assault. Yet, people continue to believe it is "justice" and "moral"...until it happens to them.

By history, we know that legal does not equal moral and the judicial system should not be worshipped like it is. There is no difference between a civilian murder and one done by the government. The only real difference is a change in name.

The law's problem is that it sees suffering as a crime deterrent, whether it is bars or death. This, as history proves (and statistics), does not work. These inhumane crime deterrents have not worked for many thousands of years. They will not work now and we, as humans, should be ashamed of what we let happen to our own kind.

Answer 6

The US Supreme Court has ruled (Baze v Rees, 2008) in a 7-2 decision that the method used by the State of Kentucky to administer the death penalty (a specific type of lethal injection) does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", and that's about the latest word on the subject from a legal standpoint.

One of the justices concurring with the judgment in that case wrote that in his opinion the death penalty itself should be abolished, but that that issue was not properly before the court. Another justice who dissented with the judgement likewise stated that the issue of capital punishment was not before the court.

It seems fair to assume that the justices who concurred that the Kentucky Method was not cruel and unusual punishment likewise don't consider the death penalty itself to be cruel and unusual punishment (though they may believe it should be abolished on other grounds). Even those who dissented with the judgement of the court limited their opinions to stating that that particular method was cruel and unusual, not that the death penalty was itself cruel and unusual.

So ... no, it is not.

Answer 7

Is killing someone humane?

Answer 8

Different people - different standards.