Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. -- Wiki

 

The debate over the death penalty is trying to determine whether or not the execution of a criminal is ever justified, and, if so under what circumstances it is allowable.

 

There are many pros and cons to the death penalty

 

Ex. Pros of DP

• Certain murderers deserve nothing more than a just, proportionate and effective form of punishment.
  
• It's 100% effective; that killer cannot commit any more crimes.
  
• DP may act as a deterrent against more crime.
  

Ex. Cons of DP

• 'An Eye for and Eye' is abhorrent thought; it is degrading to human integrity.
  
• By executing criminals you are ruling out the possibility of rehabilitation.
  
• Capital punishment costs more than life without parole.
  

So what does TDN think?

I strongly don't think so. You're throwing away a criminal's life! Two wrongs don't make a right!

I agree with you there on that. It's just not worth it. Even though I do disagree on some of the cons of the DP.

By the way, what's parole?

In America, it is the supervised release of a prisoner from prision before he/she completed the sentence. The prisoner usually has to meet some standard of X% of sentence served, have "good behavior" and agree to get a job / follow the law / get a home after being released.

 

In theory it rehabilitates convicted fellons. It differs in reality.

Can they cart the criminal back to the slammer if he misbehaves?

RE Jake: Yes, it's all supervised.

 

In my opinion, a government totally contradicts itself if it allows the killing of another because of their actions. It's just ridiculous.

 

Whatever a person has done, they do not deserve their life to be taken away. Five minutes of insanity does not give you the right to take away the next thirty, forty years of someone's life. Who are we to decide the fate of someone's life? We're in a position to decide the legislation over whether or not a person should be able to kill or not, sure, but we shouldn't punish this with plain murder.

 

There are some pretty cruel events that would make me stop and think whether or not we should terminate life, but it's only a moment before the thought passes. Besides, a person who is sent to prison for forty years, the first three of which are in total solitary confinement, is sure to be a bigger punishment and the person would actually feel punished for their actions. They'd still have some sort of a life. Everyone deserves a decent quality of life, despite their actions; whether it's controlled, in prison, or as a free man. We do not have the right to kill another person because of their actions, and if the UK would even think about reintroducing the ludricrous death penalty, I'd be one of the many millions in protest.

 

</strongwords>

I think the reason they kill is so that the murderers won't have a chance to appeal and reduce their sentence for "good behavior" or such. I agree with Sam, though.

Of course! That's thexcuse they keep using!

Yeah, many murderers worm their way back out of prison through 'good behavior' or 'rehabilitation'. That's one reason we should have a death penalty.

 

To Sam, you mentioned 'five minutes of insanity'. That applies to some people, but what about those who spend years planning a murder?

I think instead of killing them, they should pass a law so that those who are sentenced for life, should NOT get to appeal no matter what. For all we know, those murderers could actually be planning something. They're mentally ill.

How about putting them in a mental hospital?

And who would pay for that? The tax payers?