Your opinion on the Death penalty. Should it be allowed, why and what about innocent convictions

Yes, it should.Becuase people that kill, and dont value others are of no use to society and just worsen the economy.They buy shit and take loans they cant pay back, and kill others
and think of themselves only.Not to mention that they always blame it on somebody else and are never sorry. Now, its different if you have a mental disease and actually cant control yourself. But all the fools that ENJOY killing others,enjoy the electric chair.

So how do you justify killing them if you think murder is wrong?

http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?34733-Death-Penalty
Deja vu.

Quote from Fusion

So how do you justify killing them if you think murder is wrong?

Killing ≠ murder.

It seems like you're implying that supporting the death penalty is innately contradictory, since he did explain his justification for supporting it. The legal definition of murder is very specific and doesn't leave any room for the argument you seem to be preparing for.

I dont think you should be killed if it is murder in the 2nd degree

Simple: You kill, you get killed. It's very fair. Although I do think that the electric chair is too much. The killer suffers more. Execution should be completely painless, an immediate death.

Quote from Ahmad9383

Execution should be completely painless, an immediate death.

not true...if the victim suffered...he should suffer as well...

Quote from Ahmad9383

Simple: You kill, you get killed. It's very fair. Although I do think that the electric chair is too much. The killer suffers more. Execution should be completely painless, an immediate death.

Don't you think you might be oversimplifying things? Following your logic, all war heroes deserve to be executed. When it comes to determining the life/death of an individual many factors must be considered.
Not all killings are exactly the same, hence shouldn't be deemed as equal. Some are much more brutal and wicked, while some may be compassionate and just. A murderer who tortures their victims is given in return a painless death,while the victim faced a merciless one. Somehow I don't see the fairness in that. If your idea of justice is to give the criminal what they deserve, shouldn't the criminal instead have a taste of their own medicine?
I haven't researched enough to form a strong stance, but currently I remain against it. I'll probably get into reasons later.

Quote from THE RISER

not true...if the victim suffered...he should suffer as well...

I do not agree, if a person has done something incredibly wrong for example torture a person into death they should be removed from the world, nothing less. The death should be quick and painless, two wrongs don't make a right.

Just let the dude rot in jail :/ It will have a social,mental, and physical effects on him..

Quote from Envoy

Don't you think you might be oversimplifying things? Following your logic, all war heroes deserve to be executed. When it comes to determining the life/death of an individual many factors must be considered.
Not all killings are exactly the same, hence shouldn't be deemed as equal. Some are much more brutal and wicked, while some may be compassionate and just. A murderer who tortures their victims is given in return a painless death,while the victim faced a merciless one. Somehow I don't see the fairness in that. If your idea of justice is to give the criminal what they deserve, shouldn't the criminal instead have a taste of their own medicine?
I haven't researched enough to form a strong stance, but currently I remain against it. I'll probably get into reasons later.

I know that I over simplified things. The term killer or murderer is generally used to show killing as crime, not during war or acts of killing that are meant for justice. I do get your point though about that the murderer should suffer the same way the person he killed does, but it would be too brutal sometimes, and the families of the murderer will suffer too, not only him. And besides the general public will start hating on the system if it was applied in that way.

So people actually believe that punishing crimes should be based on "revenge" or "what they deserve" around here? Not surprising but still disappointing.

My viewpoint is utilitarian. If someone has broken the contract they have with society, they have given up their rights. Thus, society should deal with them in the most efficient manner possible. If the person is likely to commit a similar crime in the future, and making them into a functional member of society is impossible, then the death penalty is the most sensible action to keep other people from suffering. Death penalties shouldn't be particularly painful, there's no real reason for that.

Obviously, if the offender is not beyond returning to society properly, then the death penalty isn't a good option anymore.

Quote from godmouth

Death penalties shouldn't be particularly painful, there's no real reason for that.

Well actually I look at if, you have done something so bad to the extent where the society must kill you. You have probably given people a great deal of pain, thus you should suffer and then die.

And even beyond that, if there is some cereal killer who has killed or tried to kill a lot of people. The Death penalty is actually too good for them. They should rot in prison for the rest of there lives, then die there, just so they can feel the pain and suffering they have caused people.

Or at least that's my perspective on it.

No one has the right to take a life, not even if the dude murdered someone , we have no right to take his/her life as well. I think it'd be way better to let him/her to rot in jail instead of killing it

I'm not agreed with death penalty under any circumstance