Do you think killing in order to show that killing is wrong is okay?

No, I don’t believe that’s fine.

No, it is not. There is no difference between the death penalty and murder. The motives are the same (the killer thinks the victim ‘deserves’ death) and might does not make right.

No.I don’t agree with executing people at all. Hypocrisy at it’s finest.
Murdering murderers is still murder.

As someone who lost a close friend to murder, I won’t say I’m against it.
I want him dead. Sure, that’s wrong, but why should he be allowed to go on living when he took someone else’s life?

It also brings me some kind of sick satisfaction to think about him rotting in prison forever.

@AshLeigh I’m so sorry, that must be hard to deal with.Yes, I think prison is a much worse fate, I’d rather be dead than imprisoned for life.

I oppose the death penalty for crime for exactly the reason you cite. If it’s wrong for the murderer, it is wrong for society as well. Rather than the death penalty, the most vicious killers should get life in prison with no possibility of parole.

But the police sometimes have to take the life of an armed criminal who has showed wanton disregard for the right to life in others in order to save innocent people from being killed. Likewise, wars would happen even if we refused to fight them. In fact, announcing that we would not defend ourselves if it risked killing someone would actually assure a war and massive casualties. We have to recognize that we live in a world with some very evil people in it.

I’ve been thinking lately, although I couldn’t do it, that I’d like someone to take one of the guns with multiple whatever, that fires lots of bullets and attack a gun show. It would be suicide for the shooter, but it might make a point. And maybe if the shooter had 3 friends willing to give their lives for the cause, they could _really_make a statement.

I don’t support the death penalty.

I also don’t support the death penalty. Killing those who commit crimes, however heinous, teaches us nothing.

You don’t kill someone to show killing is wrong…

…you kill someone to prevent them from killing you or someone else.

@SABOTEUR – absobloodylutely. Rehabilitation is so difficult even when one wants to rehabilitate themselves. Had the guy who shot up Sandy Hook lived, I think murder is a fine punishment for him. Thugs who kill old people for a couple of bucks, yes! It depends on the type of murder but if it is vicious, violent, premeditated then yes. I don’t want him in jail for a few years of his sentence then moving in next door.

I have heard a lot of people say that being locked in prison is a much worse punishment than death, and use this as an argument against the death penalty. I’m going to use it as an argument for the death penalty. Being locked in a supermax prison cell is like being locked in your bathroom for twenty years. That is equivalent to torture.

If the Sandy Hook guy had lived, I’d say that the chance of successful rehabilitation is kinda low, as well as the chance of successful appeal. Now we have two choices: torture the guy for the rest of his life until he dies, or kill him now. In the end, both accomplish the same thing, but the second option is more humane.

I’m ambivalent toward the death penalty, though I’m certain I’d want the head of anyone who murdered one of my loved ones.

edited by me

I’m for the death penalty: “Death By God” where the criminal (convicted of a capital crime) is assured death while in the state’s custody in a time and manner of God’s choosing. If it turns out that God doesn’t exist then it’s merely death by natural causes. I think this position should make both sides happy.

No not at all. Killing for a reason would be the only way to go.

I’m still not clear of the question. Killing someone to show that killing is wrong somehow doesn’t make sense to me. While I agree there are times when it is appropriate to terminate someones life, most of the time it isn’t. Are we searching for the tipping point?

Let me also say I don’t understand the question. Are we saying that we should choose a random person and kill them, sort of like the lottery, in order to show others that killing is not ok? Seems to me this would do just the opposite. Hell, even if you chose a non-random person; perhaps even a murderer to kill, that would show people that this society condones killing. It does not demonstrate that killing is not ok.

The only way to show that killing is wrong is to stop killing, even in revenge. No. Especially in revenge. Forgiveness is what shows killing is not ok.

I’ve been a lifelong supporter of the death penalty. I’ve never looked at it as revenge or punishment but rather similar to shooting a rabid dog. There’s just no point in keeping it around. It’s neither punishment nor revenge, only prudent.

Recently I’ve had second thoughts on this. Not because killers shouldn’t be put down but rather because we seem to put down the wrong people. The Green River killer gets life while Scott Peterson gets the death penalty. We have released hundreds from death row since the advent of DNA evidence and we’ll never know how many have been put down that didn’t deserve it. Our legal system sucks and while it does, we should be skeptical of terminating people based on jury opinions.

I have always felt ambivalent about the death penalty. Part of me is against it, but when I read about horrible, senseless murders in which women or children are raped and killed or whole families slaughtered, I can’t help but believe the perpetrators deserve the ultimate penalty. The kid who killed 20 innocent kids last month—I believe he deserved the death penalty.

Well…..the simple fact is that the majority of killers and violent offenders are either sociopathic or otherwise highly disturbed, often victims of grave abuse themselves.
Victims of mental illness and unconscious behaviors are victims themselves. There are no easy answers, however, killing a mentally disturbed person is much more of a moral dilemma than shooting a rabid dog.

Short of self defense in the heat of the moment I do not think murdering mentally unwell or severely character disturbed people is the answer.

Far too many people who are on Death Row have been proven by Science to have NOT been guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. I am against the death penalty. I can understand the feelings of anyone who has been affected by a horrible criminal act – they want revenge & they want it NOW. But all things considered, I think that confining a criminal to prison for life with no parole would be a better decision. Think about it, being imprisoned forever, with no chance that you will ever be free again – to me this would be the worst punishment.

Has anyone executed in the USA ever been demonstrably proven innocent after the execution?

That is the focus of the Innocence Project. I know they have proven the innocence of many people, although I’m not entirely sure of whom.

@bolwerk The Griffin brothers were black farmers in South Carolina who were executed by electric chair in 1915 for murder. In October 2009 they were pardoned.

I think the same technology that has proven peoples’ innocence is also capable now of proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Innocent people on death row is not likely in the era of DNA, etc.

Too much emphasis put on the rights and comfort of the criminal, I have more sympathy for the victims and their families.

@GracieT: they caught a lot of people on death row, but I don’t think they ever proved the innocence of someone who was executed.

@flutherother: sorry, I meant since the resumption of legal executions since the 1970s. But I’m glad to see the infinitely wise State of South Carolina made it all better!

@rooeytoo: uncommon but probably not unlikely, certainly not impossible, in an era of criminal procedure favoring prosecutors, especially in the appeals process. The same people who favor such things, of course, often often favor state execution. Since they want to take away my rights, I’m quite frankly in favor of killing them.

The death penalty teaches nothing. It does not have a deterrent effect. I can not wait until it is illegal again.

It might deter abuse by agents of the state. Otherwise, I more or less agree.

I have many reasons that I don’t support the death penalty. Principley, we get the wrong person too often. The death penalty doesn’t act a deterrent to society at large to not commit murder…if it did then the U.S. would have a very low murder rate.

The death penalty is simply revenge which makes it fairly on par the murderer. The death penalty makes about as much sense to me as the parent who swats a child on the backside with the admonishment, “Don’t hit!”.

But what about Rapist cum murderers? like recent rape case in Noide ( India), I guess, you all are well aware about that news..
As if someone belonging from high class rich society( or political background), commits these crimes , i dont think he would even get life term.. Life term is much better as in killing someone, he would be definately free from his soul while in life term ( Isolation) would neither free him nor fix him..!!