I say that in such a case I'd rather see the criminal locked up for the 80 years Syzygys suggests, to contemplate his crime, to hopefully come to understand its implications and to feel remorse. Clicking on each one gives more details, which of course Syzygys will attempt to refute as appropriate. Being in a 6 by 6 cell for 23 hours, that is degrading. Yes, you no longer have a diseased person, but you have a brand new load of problems. Why worry about the family members specially? With this in mind I will present my value today: justice.
It is wrong to condemn killing by killing. Contrary to popular beliefs, killing is probably the most common, most universal and generally the most accepted activity. Even in such situations the use of lethal force is surrounded by internationally accepted legal safeguards to inhibit abuse. It is an affront to human dignity. Syzygys has supplied no evidence other than anecdote for this claim. Justice prevent some of the crimes from the society Take Singapore for an example. The death penalty is rather pointless in my opinion because it costs us more money than the life sentence.
So there should be no objection on religious ground. This is not a strong argument, however. Instead of decades, the justice is done in a much shorter period of time. How could they forgive a person who just taken their beloved one as easy as a slogan? The death penalty is not less cruel than life imprisonment. It shows that vengeance is the way to do things, and that violence against violence is not only acceptable, but encouraged. Long prison terms for serious crimes serve equally well to denounce those crimes and to show that justice is being done. If they mean killing is unnatural, that is simply not true.
Also, punishments overall never really seem to accomplish much, even when a lot of money is spent on them and they are absolutely horrible punishments. In these cases the prosecutors' hands are tied. If we can rehabilitiate a serial murderer, surely that's great for society. Depriving a human being of his life is the most extreme physical punishment it is possible to inflict on somebody. If there's a death penalty at murder number 1, that incentive is not there. One is the release of some highly publicized studies that show a number of innocents had been put to death. Since rape is not uncommon in human society, maybe we ought to use rape as a form of punishment for criminals too.
The deterrence is a complex issue, I will just go ahead and say that it is deterrent usually in white collar crimes or specially when the criminal has a clear choice to commit or not the crime and economically he'she isn't forced to do the crime. If a murderer is executed, the law stoops to their level by doing the exact thing the murderer did: killing. Yet the fact remains that society does require a death penalty, and to believe that the topic is one-sided or easily answered would be a fatal mistake. In most countries this is simply not true. Now, since they don't have the manpower, if criminals get in their bamboo jail and do nothing they don't have manpower for guarding them either , but they still eat the limited foodsupply, that basicly means either criminals can not be punished by incarceration or the tribe is going to be extinct soon. Putting a prisoner in jail that committed a lot of murders and even killed individual is subject to death! For simplicity, let's say 1 million dollar. Attention is directed on the crime and the accused, instead of where it belongs — on the family and loved ones of the victim and on the community.
One more note on the accepted guidelines for punishments posted earlier and I didn't address as a whole. Syzygys advocates the death penalty for treason, serial rape, causing severe bodily harm to many people, severe economic crimes such as financial fraud that affect many people, and sexual crimes against many children. It makes good economic sense apart from all the other factors I've mentioned to make sure that the administration of justice is as cost-effective as possible, since a cost-effective justice system leaves more resources available for achieving other public goods. It is a stacked deck from the beginning. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges. What does the teacher do? Incapacitation The criminal is prevented from committing more crimes, and the public is therefore protected. The death penalty is not supported by major religions in their modern forms.
. Let me show you about it. Dead man need no organ anymore. Reparation for one as we saw it from the example above. I never said the system was perfect, but I argue that instead of throwing it out, let's make it better. Everybody has the right to live, it is in the Universal Big Fat Book of Human Rights or something.
Killing the one in prison will do nothing to shut down the network. A person of integrity is able to accept being wrong. Also, only a very small percentage of people on death row are actually executed. Killing people is human, so we ought to have the death penalty. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.
If we execution was incorrect, a place immediatelly in heaven is way better than a few decades in prison. Again, let's try to make the system better, instead of abandoning it. Deterrence is very hard to measure because other factors such as economy effects the crime rate. Instead of decades, the justice is done in a much shorter period of time. Inconsistencies and errors are rife in jurisdictions with capital punishment.
For simplicity, let's say 1 million dollar. However, it seems obvious that life imprisonment for serious crimes serves equally well. I personal said pretty much everything I could without researching the pro-side. And even if it were true, that doesn't mean it is automaticly wrong. You are assuming that criminals think logically why comitting crimes.