Is it right to impose the death penalty on somebody because they committed murder? Isn't legally murdering them a moral contradiction?

Personally, I believe the death penalty is bad public policy, but not morally wrong, or a moral contradiction. I believe it is bad public policy because yes, it is possible to be wrong and execute innocent people, and this has probably happened. Executions also create what sociologists have called the "brutalization effect."

That is, murder rates actually go up following executions, so rather than being a deterrent, they actually seem to send the message that killing is okay. Executions are also incredibly expensive, from a more expensive trial all the way to the appeals and final act. Finally, executions are often doled out unfairly.

For instance, in my state, Gary Ridgeway (the "Green River Killer") was able to bargain his way out of the death penalty, after killing nearly 50 women, because he got to trade on some information he had. Others, who have killed far fewer people, have been put to death, because they didn't have anything to make a deal with. That having been said, if somehow public policy could be swept aside, and you had some sort of perfect realm, in which you could be 100% sure the person was guilty, I do not believe it would be wrong to kill them.To say that the executioner is just as bad as the killer, is to say that the killer and his victims are of equal worth.

I don't believe that is true. I believe the killer voluntarily surrenders his social worth when he kills an innocent person. Take for instance Ted Bundy.

To say that we're no better than Bundy for putting him to death is to say that Ted Bundy's life is equal to that of the 12-year-old little girl he ruthlessly slaughtered (not to mention the adults he killed). If you had to choose between Ted Bundy and the little girl, and could only save one of them, would you really flip a coin? No, you would save the girl.

We instinctively understand that Bundy has less worth. I'm not saying you need to accept this as an argument for why executions are okay, but I think it does prove that executions are not a moral contradiction.An execution is not a murder. Killers surrender certain rights when they take the lives of innocent people.

I don't believe every murderer should be sentenced to death, but for many killers, they chose to kill because they enjoy killing. They selected an innocent person, murdered them for their own enjoyment, and walked away guilt-free. They do not have a moral high ground to stand on.

When they whine and cry that they deserve life, what are they basing that on? The assumption that no one can ever lose their right to life, even if they deny that right to others? Where does that idea come from?

Frankly, nowhere. I have never heard a persuasive philosophical argument to that effect, and most cultures have not accepted that idea throughout history. Ask just about anyone if they would kill given the chance, and almost everyone would say yes.

I understand there is no perfect realm where you can be 100% sure. I guess my overall point is, I don't think it is a good idea for our society to put people to death, for practical purposes, but the people who threw the switch on Bundy (or Gacy, Fish, etc) can sleep easy knowing they didn't do anything morally wrong.

I am against death penalty, because it is too 'permanent', and cannot be reversed. Legal cases are always prone to be wrong. New methods of investigation (like with DNA), new witnesses or proof can show a convicted criminal was actually innocent.

Also, the beliefs of 'right or wrong' differ from time to time, and whoever is found guilty right now, could be tomorrow's hero. What is now called a murder, could tomorrow turn out to be self-defense. Plus, with current law-system, prejudice or even racism could cause an innocent man to be convicted.

Some juries are (unconsciously or not) more inclined to convict a black man, than a white female. Thirdly, mistakes are made. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life that every now and then, a wrong conclusion is drawn.

Maybe on swapped evidence, mis-interpretations, or any other reason, but mistakes will always happen. Now, wouldn't it be sad if a man was killed on the electric chair, only for people to then find out he was framed? Remember, we used to impose a death penalty on people because we thought they were witches...

The permanency of capital punishment is a point well taken. Still it must be noted that cases of certain guilt do exist, and DNA evidence is often proof of the deed. Murder and legal homicide do not share the same definition.

Murder requires premeditation in the taking of human life, whereas legal homicide requires proof of the act, legal defense of the accused, jury deliberation, and finally sentencing of the offender if found guilty. In short, the consequence of taking life is losing life. The emotional citation of witch-hunting has no bearing on today's cases of individuals deciding to walk into a store and debrain a mother of three.

I don't believe in the death penalty it is not right at all why would you take a persons life away when we have plenty of high security prisons that wwe can put them in I believe that it is a unfair punishment but I can honestly see that some more than others deserve to die or have there life taken frome them but I still don't understand who should get to decide wether the person lives or dies nobody ever has the right to take somebodies life I think it is an unfair responce to try and solve a problem when we have ways to keep a person by themselves for the rest of there lifes.

I don't believe in the death penalty because there have been so many cases of people being wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit. There are no take backs with death, you can't change your mind or apologize later for making a mistake and as the first person answered, it is permanent. I also don't believe that I have the right to decide who lives and dies.

I'm not God. I do understand it though when I imagine the anger and sickness I'd feel if someone close to me were murdered or hurt. If I were Jessica Lunsford's father, for example, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about John Couey's death.

Short and sweet ... I do not agree with the death penalty, a life for a life doesn't solve the problem.... we do not have the right to say who lives and who dies.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.