<p>Should be kept. They should torture\hang serial killers just to share the favor. What comes around goes around.</p>
<p>I’m just going to throw this out there…</p>
<p>Until it is discovered what happens after one dies (scientifically, not religiously or spiritually) the debate about the death of one person is almost irrelevant. You can compare the sentence of death to war, to abortion, or to some, peace. It is the greatest question in life and the one that an answer to would truly change the world forever. Though the question will not likely be answered, it is one that created the opinions of many on this topic.</p>
<p>And in all cases, there is only one person who truly knows guilt or innocence. It is never certain when honesty isn’t the first priority of a person. This debate cannot be centered around one man because there will always be others who, no matter their opinion on the death penalty, believe the opposite of what society ruled. It must be centered on the idealogical and moral objectives of the death penalty. </p>
<p>Either way, the death penalty will probably never be outlawed. I’d predict that debate would cause similar controversy to health care.</p>
<p>Though I should mention that I too vehemently oppose the death penalty.</p>
<p>The death penalty is ajust and necessary tool in today’s world of corruption and violence.</p>
<p>A blunder of the system does not make the whole system bad. The only flaw was a lack of judgment by those who sentenced the penalty so hastily. But the death of persons who commit sinister crimes is called justice.</p>
<p>I disagree, B Man. I personally think that death should be ONLY for those who have been sentenced and escape (ofc with many warnings beforehand). To kill an innocent man while letting the killer go free is just wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congrats on being wrong. Pretty much every other first world country doesn’t find the death penalty necessary.</p>
<p>How many blunders would make the system bad? How many innocent people are you willing to murder for that satisfying feeling of “justice”?</p>
<p>i disagree with the no life sentence part…okay i agree death penalites are harsh…but life penalities are not…especially if the suspect is guilty</p>
<p>“How many blunders would make the system bad? How many innocent people are you willing to murder for that satisfying feeling of “justice”?”
exactly. what if u personally knew some one who was one of those ‘blunders’? it would matter to meee.</p>
<p>Fry 'em.</p>
<p>(10 char)</p>
<p>Yeah, prisons are getting overcrowded anyway… Off with their heads.</p>
<p>The death penalty has been a part of our society since the beggining on man kind…through a legal system or otherways. It is part of our nature to demand justice in certain circumstances, eliminating it would be eliminating a part of our own nature (wether it is liked or not).</p>
<p>Life in prison is a better sentence for murderers because there’s no chance of them killing again and if you put an innocent man in prison you can let him out again, whereas if you kill an innocent man there’s nothing you can do about it.</p>
<p>I dunno about everyone’s system of morality, but I’d rather have murderers alive and not a threat to society than a single innocent person dead because of a judicial error.</p>
<p>Hatersunite…maybe you are really just that. A hater.</p>
<p>You can’t tell me my opinion is wrong just because it differs with your own, however unrealistically idealistic it is.</p>
<p>A murderer or rapist doesn’t deserve to live. It’s very simple. The death of an innocent man is tragic, but it’s not the concept of the death penalty’s fault; it is the fault of those who PRESCRIBED the verdict.</p>
<p>Ok, I guess you’re right. I can’t call racists wrong because it’s their opinion. But they’re still wrong.</p>
<p>And why don’t murderers and rapists deserve to live? You still believe in laws that humans used 3000 years ago? </p>
<p>LOL @ YOU</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why is it that every other major country has found a way to eliminate it? </p>
<p>Slavery was a part of American culture for it’s first 200 years. Doesn’t mean we had to keep it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No judicial system is perfect, so innocent people will keep dying until we get rid of the death penalty.</p>
<p>You can’t compare slavery to the death penalty. And stop taking the fast track for conclusions; it’s not helping.</p>
<p>Slavery was a system based on one’s birth. The only things that mattered were whether you were born into it, lost into it (war), or were simply enslaved for not being white (early Portuguese). However, the judicial system’s use of the death penalty is based on ACTION. In a perfect scenario, a murderer/rapist is caught, put to trial, and executed. However, the few times this doesn’t happen, people love to shove it in other’s faces like it’s divine proof. That’s like banning the use of automobile transportation just because of drunk driving; it’s an extremely small minority that can be dealt with.</p>
<p>That’s right. Sometimes you just have to TWEAK the system, not completely change it.</p>
<p>Except driving is useful, while the death penalty just fuels people’s revenge fantasies. Locking people up is just as useful in preventing future murderers, plus you get to let innocent people go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s more like saying “don’t ban drunk driving because most drunk drivers don’t kill anyone”.</p>
<p>What about the criminals who get life without parole only to be released a few decades later? Better to give them the death penalty in that situation.</p>