Since 1976 there have been 1,130 inmates who have been executed in the US. In 2007 there were 42, and in 2008 there have already been 31. [1] We have another 3,309 on Death Row. [SIZE=1][2]

Is this constitutional? According to the 8th amendment to the US Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishment [shall not] be inflicted." [3] This is a very vague statement, and was no doubt left that way by our founding fathers to ensure that future generations, as times changed, would be able to do what is right in modern times. So the question is easy: Is the death penalty Constitutional?

New york says it isn't. [4]

[SIZE=2]In fact, most countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, including almost all of Europe, Australia, Canada, Mexico, etc. [SIZE=1][5]

[SIZE=2]The obvious argument is that having harsher punishments will reduce crime rates. But is this accurate?

At a closer look at the numbers, we can conclude that, in fact, having a Death Penalty does not reduce crime rates. Nations like Canada, most of Europe, and Australia have lower homicide rates than the US, yet they do not enforce a Death Penalty. [SIZE=1][6]

So is there some other benefit to having a death penalty? And should we continue to use the Death Penalty in the United States?
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Over 100 people on death row have been released after being found innocent, narrowly escaping the death penalty.

Imagine how many people have been put on death row while innocent, but weren't lucky enough to have been found innocent before death.

Death penalty = shit imo

life in prison = better imo

especially if it's an aussie prison.

Yeah the death penalty is really risky due to its finality. Evidence simply can't be evaluated fast enough to keep up with the court process, so people get killed and later evidence arrives that proves them innocent.

death is the easy way out. life in prison is more of a punishment.

Quote from 2-D

death is the easy way out. life in prison is more of a punishment.

Which is why I think them terrorists and such shouldn't be killed.

Guantanamo bay

Quote from Dinomut

Yeah the death penalty is really risky due to its finality. Evidence simply can't be evaluated fast enough to keep up with the court process, so people get killed and later evidence arrives that proves them innocent.

Quote from 2-D

death is the easy way out. life in prison is more of a punishment.

Not for the innocent ones.

Death is far to conclusive. There is no chance of a reprimand, however that said, if someone had to serve a prison sentence for say 20 years before being able to be executed, it would at least give enough time to prove their innocence.

But I'm definately against it, as well it is going back to the eye, for an eye thing. Which considering we are in the 21st Century, it is really primitive.

I don't know how the HELL you idiots manage to turn EVERYTHING into a religious argument (Fluxinator I am looking at you right now), but keep to the topic at hand. POSTS DELETED.




Anyways, consider this: For every person we choose to give a life sentence instead of execution, we have to pay money to keep that person in prison with food, water etc. With the economy we have today, is it really viable to be paying the money it takes to keep these scum around?

Quote from Bonk

Not for the innocent ones.

Yeah but there's a chance of compensation if one is imprisoned. Death penalty is obviously irreversable.

I'm against the death penalty for these and many more reasons. One of them is also the question of being the "appropriate punishment". If one person, who commited a murder should be excecuted, what about some guy who tortured and brutally murdered 20 people? Should there be an additional punishment, such as torture just to "serve to the justice"? Doesn't that create a slippery slope of subjectivity and torturing people on whims of some birocrats?

Just wondering.

Also, I agree about death penalty not making crime rates lower. It has this brutalising effect on people imo.

I don't think death penalty is as simple as "you killed a guy, death penalty on you mister," at least it shouldn't be. In my opinion death penalty should only be used in extremely extreme and rare cases, if it should be used at all. For example if a person brutally tortures and kills twenty people, is imprisoned, and promises that if he ever gets out he will repeat the same thing. Now all we can do is either imprison him for life, send him to a mental institution or kill him. I figure there is no reason to spend money for food, shelter, and probably psychiatrists on a person that most likely won't do anything productive to society. Isn't it better to just kill him? I know my example is far fetched, but bear with me.

Another thing, say that every tenth person convicted for murder kills again, while only one out of hundred of the people convicted are actually innocent. If this is true more innocent dies, isn't the life of nine individuals worth the unfair death of one? Note that these statistics are entirely made up, and may be completely false. However I do think that the statistics are closer to this than the other way around, correct me if I am wrong.

So the ends justify the means?

Quote from Bonk

So the ends justify the means?

I don't think that there is any generalizing statement in the world that is always true, but in some cases: yes.

Quote from alive

I don't think death penalty is as simple as "you killed a guy, death penalty on you mister," at least it shouldn't be. In my opinion death penalty should only be used in extremely extreme and rare cases, if it should be used at all. For example if a person brutally tortures and kills twenty people, is imprisoned, and promises that if he ever gets out he will repeat the same thing. Now all we can do is either imprison him for life, send him to a mental institution or kill him. I figure there is no reason to spend money for food, shelter, and probably psychiatrists on a person that most likely won't do anything productive to society. Isn't it better to just kill him? I know my example is far fetched, but bear with me.

Another thing, say that every tenth person convicted for murder kills again, while only one out of hundred of the people convicted are actually innocent. If this is true more innocent dies, isn't the life of nine individuals worth the unfair death of one? Note that these statistics are entirely made up, and may be completely false. However I do think that the statistics are closer to this than the other way around, correct me if I am wrong.

So basically..

Requirement form for Death Penalty:
Have you killed a person? yes/no
How many? 5+/10+/20+
Killed their family? yes/no
Raped them? yes/no
Tortured them? yes/no

Sure these things are easy to say but still, regardless of what the person did, no one should have the right to KILL them.