 |
|
|
|
| Death Penalty Is Necessary. |
| We Need Death Penalty To Punish Those Most Heinous And Ruthless Murders And Give Fear To Those Who Attempt To Act Those Merciless Crimes.For More Information About Death Penalty, Please Read here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it is. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As long as it isn't painful, it isn't cruel, and it isn't unusual. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is highly necessary. Considering all the innocent lives that are taken is rediculous! It majorly
depends on what they do, though. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Some people deserve to die immediately for what they've done(ex:9/11,Columbine,VTech,Helter
Skelter's group) but i also believe that others should live a few years because death is too good of
an easy way out for them, but i'm the type of person that believes that if you've killed someone,
you deserve to die. Same thing goes with rapists,child molesters, and such |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, I believe the death penalty should exist. I think there are crimes that people cannot come back
from. Point and case, Joseph Edward Duncan, who had a history of child assault and molestation
charges going back to his teenage years, gets out of prison and kills an entire family save for a
young boy and girl. He then takes the boy and girl to a campground where he sexually molests the boy
over and over. The boy eventually stumbled out in front of the girl and Joseph puts a gun to the
boy's head and kills him. The girl saw her brother get his brains blown out. Then Duncan takes the
girl to a restaurant a week or two later where the waitress recognizes the girl and calls the
cops.
Are you telling me this guy can be saved? If you think he can be saved, why don't you let him live
in your neighborhood and play with your kids...maybe then you'd understand after you kid turns up
raped and murdered. I say a quick death penalty is letting these people off the hook too soon. I
like when the chair acts up on people like Duncan and doesn't kill him the first couple of
times...
Besides the fact that keeping people like Duncan in prison and paying for his psychologists,
psychiatrists, and all the meds he'd be on would be costing the taxpayers an arm and a leg. Slap 'em
in the chair and let 'er rip! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe if someone kills another person the murderer should be killed. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree there are already high crime rates in the u.s. No matter what party holds the presidents
seat. Why do we want to keep people alive and continue paying taxes on them to eat three meals,
have an exercise activity, smuggling drugs in prisons, arranging more crime, murders should be put
on the death penalty and they should be given a maximum of 1 year before there day comes |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Eye for an eye, the way I see it. I don't see why my tax dollars should pay to keep a murderer alive
who is serving a life sentence. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
For crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse and terrorism it should be brought and should be
applied when there is absolute proof, indisputable DNA evidence, caught on camera or reliable
witnesses then it could be very necessary to a country like Britain. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I do believe that the death penalty should be present for people who murder, rape, molest, such and
such. They do not deserve to live!!! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The death penalty would be the best idea for alot of inmates. We are paying daily for them to be
fed, have clothing, clean linens, exercise, visitation with loved ones. It is basically like a hotel
but with someone watching you. Using the death penalty could save us millions. There is no reason we
should have to pay for these murders and rapists to be alive. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Prisons are overflowing with terrible, relentless criminals. Why waste our time feeding, clothing,
bathing and just generally taking care of them? The way I see it, it's an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth, and a life for a life. People would probably also think twice about murdering someone
if they knew the ultimate consequence was to have their own life taken away. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In England, the death penalty is illegal, and as a result their prisons are overflowed, and millions
of Pounds are spent on keeping these prisons in order.
The death penalty should only be used under the most heinous of crimes. If one has had multiple and
extremely violent crimes, the death penalty should be considered.
Now, I think some people think we have plenty of prisons. But, we are growing short, and more and
more people will be going into them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If the penalty is given they have to be sure more than sure in some cases. How would you feel if a
rapist murderer was released from prison after ten years had not changed and was on your street
would you feel safe. They have taken someones life they do not deserve to be amongst us. Besides
murderers can get imprisoned for as little as 10 years that's a long time it should be from when
they were convicted until they die as simple as that |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I will express support for the Death Penalty.
My reasoning being, the Justice system is designed to do what? Dispense justice to keep law and
order. Locking people up may perhaps be more 'morally desirable', there is the possibility of
executing innocents and yes it may not act as a deterrent to those who are completely committed to
carrying out murder in the first place.
However, many people dismiss the legal system as they do not believe justice is being dealt when
someone who has murdered say, a family member of someone else is simply locked up with a 'life
sentence' (which isn't for life). Prisons are overflowing and people guilty of major crimes are
being allowed to leave early in some cases which contradicts the principle of punishment.
People make the conscious decision to murder, they understand the risks and therefore they should be
punished appropriately. The punishment needs to fit the crime and if by taking a life, we save
numerous others then is that not benefiting society and giving the family of the victim peace of
mind that the killer will never hurt again? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The punishment deserves to be equal to the crime and if its cold blooded murder that's what they
deserve, so on a moral level its kind of 50 50 you could argue all day i guess but but for the last
person who said "what are you god or something" god said an eye for an eye fool. What do you think
that means, and its in the best interests of the public and people in prison for that matter,,,,
they mix someone who committed fraud with these people and that's not right in its self.... Kill em
and let em burn where there going |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes all that cause harm to another human being, it is only fair to take a life for another so that
the muderer can't kill another victim. How would you feel if you could let some won kill another or
put him to death. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
People say that it is inhuman to treat criminals like this, but they need to realize that the
criminals wouldn't do the crime if there were greater consequences. And why do we have to treat the
criminals good anyways, THEY ARE CRIMINALS! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I am going to go on the agree with it side here. But not for the reason that it would deter crime,
I don't think it would. I would save it for very worst and most clear cut cases. I am thinking
about Ian Huntley in England as an example.
I cannot agree that executing someone like Huntly is as bad as his acts. He killed 2 little girls
for kicks. It isn't just the same is it? No more so than jailing someone for who held their victim
against their will in a dungeon.
I would leave it to the families of the victims to decide. I for one would want Huntly dead if
Holly or Jessica were my little girls, if seeing him executed makes their families feel a little
better that is enough for me. I would also feel sick to think that my taxes were being spent on
him. I would feel divested all over again if I saw Huntly in the papers getting access to the
Internet, cable TV and a playstation. Which has happened.
The only valid argument against it is that an innocent to be sentenced to death, but there are cases
where it is clear cut and 100%, save it for them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The death penalty is necessary because what are we going to do let mass murders run free |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It costs millions of dollars a year to keep criminals in jail, money that could go to health care or
something similar.
It's possible to escape from prison, even the most well guarded. It's pretty hard to come back from
the dead.
If someone brutally takes the lives of others, or even leaves their victims alive but tortures them
and makes them unable to function, and does this to multiple people, then by my figuring they've
given up any right they ever had to life.
To the people arguing that there are some people on death row who are innocent: With the addition of
DNA that's becoming less and less common.
People are given multiple life sentences in many cases because the death penalty is banned. Hello?
How exactly are they supposed to serve those?
If there's no chance of parole and the criminal's going to be in jail for the rest of his/her life,
then why not just go ahead and kill him/her?
I'm totally for the death penalty. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Many can differ to my thoughts but what I feel strongly that who take the lives should pay the
humanity by giving their lives in return. That means death penalty should be made necessary for
those serial killers who take lives of women, children without caring anything in this world. But
they should have been given a clear message that they would not be able to have their life back
after some 10-15 years. A 15 year imprisonment is not enough to make those maniacs straight. “By
taking lives they would have to give their own lives too”-this should be the message to those
heartless cruel maniacs. Only thus the precious souls of their victims would get peace in heaven.
According to me, by death penalty we could be able to save lives what could be taken after the life
long imprisonment of those maniacs. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
With DNA evidence as good as it is these days yes it will free up prisons life will mean a life
and crime figures will fall |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think they should take it one step farther, 15yrs to wait to be killed for something that bad,
that’s 15yrs of wasted money on someone that deserves to be dead sooner. Good behavior in jail
shouldn’t matter, you’re in jail for a reason and you shouldn’t be rewarded for anything in
jail, especially when on a death penalty. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are some crimes that are so heinous that the criminal forfeits their right to breathe the same
air as decent people. That's justice. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I am for the death penalty especially when a child has been killed. They are innocent and can't
protect themselves. I have Bi Polar Disorder and I can tell when I am fixing to go off the deep end.
I don't have children, but if I did I would make sure my children were taken to my mother's or
friends or even put up for adoption before I hurt them. If I ever killed someone I would want to be
put to death. Plus most of the people who do kill can not be reconciled back into society especially
if it is a horrendous death. We as tax payers pay for the criminals to be in jail. They get 3 meals
a day, are able, to exercise, and can teach themselves to be lawyers, etc. They do their time by
being good and trying to stay out of trouble, then they get out of jail and kill again. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are simply some crimes for which society has decided that the guilty has given up their right
to breathe the same air as the rest of us. In some cases, the only just punishment is a final one.
It makes no sense whatsoever to keep people who are never going to get out of prison alive, they
just take time, money and resources away from those who stand some chance of being rehabilitated
and becoming productive members of society.
Take out the trash, it's the only rational choice. |
| |
| | | | |
28 Nov 2007 15:51
