it isn't wrong for the state to kill someone.

Well it is ^
That would make us nothing more than animals.

No it doesn't. Animals would kill you without due process.

Which is exactly what you are imposing.

no it isn't. You have to be sentenced to death. A police officer can't just decide on the spot that you're guilty and kill you. This isn't judge dredd type shit.

The death sentence was immoral which is why it's not enforced by western nations.

"That would make us nothing more than animals."
Animals: The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, meaning having breath, having soul or living being.

morality is subjective and the dealth penalty is still used in western nations.

The only country in Europe to not abolish the Death penalty is Belarus as Latvia abolished it in 2012.

Common misconception^ Donetsk and North Cyprus and maybe Abkhazia and Luhansk (don't recall for sure) still have the death punishment. Kazakhstan holds the right to do so, but only in special circumstances (I don't recall precisely). I think death is a punishment that should be used in rare circumstances, f.e. is this person likely to get out of gaol, is he a threat to folk?

1) The justice makes mistakes.
2) Killing a murderer doesn't reduce the crimerate in a significant way (it is proved).
3) Executions sometimes fail.
4) Not all murderers deserve to die.
5) Death penalty costs more then lifetime imprisonement.
6) Killing murderers has the sole purpose of revenge, and that is unnaceptable.
7) It is wrong for the state to kill people.

1) That's why the death punishment should not be used lightly.
2) How do you mean? Why would it?
3) Gun does not fail.
4) That's subjective, what don't?
5) I strongly doubt this. You have to give food/water to these folk for years, not just months. A metal shell with a detachable tip and propellers inside costs more than (albeit bad) food for years?
6) First, subjective. Second, you can say imprisoning someone for any crime is "unacceptable revenge".
7) Totally subjective.

Edited 2/10/2016 01:54:16

Republicans - Abortion is wrong. Life starts at conception.

Republicans - Kill people. Death Penalty is legal, the only problem is we don't use it enough. Start more wars. Imperialism is legal, the only problem is we don't do it enough. Kill environment.

Jai, please tell me your kidding. Or that someone hacked your account.

Comparing killing an unborn baby to executing a f***ing child rapist is an insanely idiotic comparison.

Edited 2/10/2016 01:54:13

I don't think so. My position on life is very clear and consistent. We as humans are not in a position to act as an executioner. We can judge and dole out temporal punishments, but the state has no inherent Constitutional right to act as an executioner of other people and give eternal punishment. All life is sacred, from the smallest ant to the most evil human being. I would rather him rot in prison for the rest of his life in a small cell and in solitary confinement so he must think every second about the wrong he has done then give him a quick ending to his horrible crime.

^
+1

Jai- except he won't

The U.S. government will spend tens of thousands a year a year to pay these monsters to get food, water, medical bills, etc........ Money that could be spent on a lot more important things.

Better than the millions America spends on its military, that kills innocent civilians.

A Government has to put its citizens lives and National Security first.

You can't save everyone.

Sorry, life isn't happy-flappy land where everyone gets to live a beautiful life with rainbows. People are always gonna die.

Better than the millions America spends on its military, that kills innocent civilians.

+1

What national security threat justifies America spending more than the next 8 countries combined on national defense? None.

Republicans can't play it both ways. We can't say we support life and then promote the most Hawkish foreign policy that inherently puts innocent non-combatant lives in danger. ISIS terrorists deserve to die, but innocent civilians don't just because they live in the same area.

Republicans can't play it both ways. We can't say we support a smaller budget and government and then promote huge military spending.

People are always gonna die.

Agreed, but we should promote policies that doesn't promote killing for killing sake. Yes we could kill murderers and child rapists, but the whole point is that we don't. We occupy a moral high ground by showing mercy. Not forgiveness (let me be clear about this), but mercy. Jailing them in a small cell and with no freedom is punishment enough. Let's let God decide who the real sinners are.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:13:57

Wow, Jai, you really haven't checked the news recently have you?

Google "spratly islands dispute".

We as humans are not in a position to act as an executioner. We can judge and dole out temporal punishments, but the state has no inherent Constitutional right to act as an executioner of other people and give eternal punishment. All life is sacred, from the smallest ant to the most evil human being. I would rather him rot in prison for the rest of his life in a small cell and in solitary confinement so he must think every second about the wrong he has done then give him a quick ending to his horrible crime.

I think its the exact opposite of what your saying:
We as humans are in a position to act as an executioner and this is proven countless times.
No life is sacred, all life is supposed to end, some sooner then others. I would rather not have him rot in prison for the rest of his life in a small cell and in solitary confinement, because i don't care about revenge. Just kill him and be done with it (Edit: the cheapest way possible, or imprison him when that will bring money), instead of wasting tax-money.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:38:46

@Жұқтыру

1) The guardian says 4 percent of defendants sentenced to die are innocent. That's not acceptable and it's probably underrated.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent


2) I believe one of the many arguments to defend the death penalty is that it prevents crime.


3) Guns don't, but medicine used to kill do.


4) It's subjective indeed.


5) Death penalty does costs a lot of a hell more then just leaving people on prison..

A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million). Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. Criminal Justice Professor Peter Collins, the lead author of the study, said, “What this provides is evidence of the costs of death-penalty cases, empirical evidence. We went into it [the study] wanting to remain objective. This is purely about the economics; whether or not it’s worth the investment is up to the public, the voters of Washington and the people we elected.” (Although Washington's death penalty was reinstated in 1981, the study examined cases from 1997 onwards. Using only cases in the study, the gross bill to taxpayers for the death penalty will be about $120 million. Washington has carried out five executions since reinstatement, implying a cost of $24 million per execution.

That's for the state of Washington. I won't search it for every american state, if you wanna, just check http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty.


6) Putting someone in prison is a way to punish people, thus making them learn and think. Killing them is just a barbaric way to get rid of someone. You lose the learn and think aspects. Plus, for some people just getting killed is a too easy way to escape from your debt towards society. Just make them work in prison to make them pay.


7) In a world were there's so many violence already, the state shouldn't participate on it.