Execution is the inevitable death sentence, sanctioned by the government. Countries have different viewpoints regarding it. Thirty-six countries actively practice capital penalization, 103 countries have consummately abolished it for all malefactions, six have abolished it for mundane malefactions (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as heinous war malefactions), and 50 have abolished it on a customary substratum. I’d like to discuss the effects of government capital punishment, and how it might affect us as people, regarding our moral values.  


Should we continue to hastily execute or should we give life sentences instead? What should be the defining criteria for strict capital punishment? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Share if you will. 

It really depends I suppose. There's such a gray area with the death penalty. A few years ago I was all for it, I believed(and kind of still do)  if you purposefully kill someone than you are no longer human and therefore don't deserve to be treated as such.

However now I believe that while execution should still be allowed, it should only be for the worst kind of people. Isis for example deserve death. Serial killers as well. A one off murder, maybe at the most life in prison.

It's not really morality that made me change my beliefs. I think it's more better off for someone to stay in jail thinking about what they did. Also from what I've heard/read executions cost more than life in prison and truth be told, I'd rather less money be spent on things of this nature(especially since its taxpayers money funding these kind of things). Lastly there's the small chance that a convicted murderer is actually innocent and with life in prison sentence there's a way of somehow saving them.

So yeah. The ultimate punishment should only be reserved for those who really deserve it.

Jail is expensive. People shouldn't be in jail unless it's really necessary.



If some guy has little hope in becoming a reputable member of society any more, then death penalty (or even exile) seems like a valid solution. Jail essentially functions as an exile now, and we hold them until they die, so it's simply a slow death.



That being said, death penalty should only be used in cases where evidence is clear and the crime is heinous. I actually propose exile. We simply don't want anything to do with X any more, so we remove him. I'd rather kick the guy out of the country than kill him if I had a choice.



Jails must be used as timeouts or long-term surveillance. Public intoxication? Make them spend the night and fine them. Weed? No jail, just fine them. Violent assault? Jail time now becomes observation to see if it was an isolated incident or if they're a danger. If they're a danger, exile. If they're not, they're released.



My philosophy on crime isn't horribly complex. Punish people when they do wrong, but the punishment should meet the crime. Jail isn't much of a punishment; timeout is for children. Not everything is best punished with timeouts. Most things, I believe, should be punished by requiring penance to the community.

You know, execution has been a topic in the United States for years because it does violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution (which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment). But should execution be outlawed, I'm 50/50 on the whole ordeal.

I think personally, we can send someone to prison for the rest of their lives for commenting a murder rather than being put to death, but at the same time, he should get payback and be put to death after killing someone, so that is why I said I'm 50/50 on this issue.

Although there are a lot worse things out there that is far worse that needs execution like some of the mass killings, because if they get released from prison somehow someway, they're going to keep killing, so it's best to put them down to avoid this from happening yet again.


This is why a lot of people are for executions, and a lot are against it, and the people that are against it will bring up the 8th Amendment like I said, so this has been quite a topic that people have discussed for years.

Hmm. Execution. Banned? Maybe. As I said in another post recently, I applauded someone who said that "the punishment must fit the crime." I will add on to this by using Newton's Third Law of Motion: "for every action, there is an equal reaction." I think execution should only be used on high profile crimes, such as murder or terrorism. Should they be killed in the same way that they killed innocent people? Maybe. In the case of terrorism, an electric chair might fit the punishment rather than blowing the terrorist up. But only maybe. Depending on the emotional distress that was caused either locally, nationally or globally, they should be killed in the same way that they killed those people. Criminals need to learn that what they do is wrong.

Normally I just hang out in chat and don't bother posting in the forum, since I've seen two or three different versions of all the threads on this site or on others. Since chat is down, though, I figure I'll contribute here and advocate for the side of banning state executions. IB122 touched on the 8th amendment, but when I'm off observing debates between supporters and opposers of the death penalty, the constitution is only a minor point that gets brought up. I'll talk about some reasons I consider more salient.

 Most of you have expressed the opinion, more or less, that murderers do not deserve to live, or that they should be killed in order to prevent them taking further victims. That's a position I understand, and possibly even agree with in an abstract, idealized world. However, in real life, governments, and indeed groups of people in general, quite often come to incorrect conclusions about factual issues, thanks to purposeful deception, inadequate evidence, or simple discrimination blinding them from the truth. So in my opinion, whether we should allow state executions doesn't depend as much on whether the murderer deserves to die as it does on whether our courts can be trusted to properly identify those cases and find the truth. The famous (in law) Blackstone theorem states that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. That's not some official ratio, and in fact, I'd lean towards letting even more guilty people escape to prevent one innocent from suffering. And it's not because I'm a particularly squeamish or kind-hearted person, either.

It's impossible to find a reliable statistic for how often innocents are wrongly convicted of murder in the United States, but we can know for sure that it does happen, and it even happens flagrantly, in ways that make you shake your head and mistrust the government. The Innocence Project (not a very large organization, mind you) has exonerated over 300 innocent defendants after their convictions in the past 25 years. Many wrongly convicted prisoners even had recorded confessions from the time of their arrests. It is not at all uncommon for police officers to use every trick they can to get detainees to confess a crime, including telling them that they will be convicted no matter what, and promising them a lighter sentence if they confess (police will mostly do this when they truly believe the detainee committed the crime, so they usually don't have the slightest problem with it). This practice is a gross miscarriage of justice, and there are many more practices in the US legal system that make me very uncomfortable with the idea of letting them permanently end a life, given their demonstrated incompetence at finding actual perpetrators.

Now, from another angle, Txgangsta mentioned that "Jail is expensive. People shouldn't be in jail unless it's really necessary." Jail is actually fairly cheap per prisoner per year compared to many other programs, but if you're so concerned about taxpayer money (which you're definitely NOT if you support a wall on the southern border or any increases in the military or military contracting budgets) then it may surprise you to learn that executions occur much HIGHER costs on average than life imprisonments, thanks to the long death row wait times and pricey legal battles that almost always result from sentencing people to die. You may think "then you should just kill the man and get it over with, and don't let them legally contest the verdict and try to get out of it." That would indeed cut the cost down, but if you think after all these proven wrongful murder convictions that it's morally correct to deny prisoners the opportunity to continue to try and prove their innocence, then you and I will simply never see eye to eye on this matter. 

The bottom line is, I don't think the American government can or should be trusted with a matter as grave as ending a person's life. As a side note, it's very strange to me how many conservative who think the government is completely incompetent DO think it should be allowed to kill its own citizens.

The death of a single innocent (or prospect thereof) is sufficient to oppose the death penalty. Not only is the process very expensive (with all the appeals) but so many people have been on death row while their indisputable guilt was not. DNA evidence will likely reverse the sentence for many of them, fortunately.

Also, it gives government a tremendous amount of power everyone should be scared of. And I am not even talking about late 1930s Germany or Soviet Russia. Even with the rule of law in place, governments having the power of life and death over their citizens have used it time and time again.

Finally, despite having abolished the death penalty in the 1970s Canada has NOT seen a tremendous increase in crimes.

I think the death penalty should be expanded and here is the key part,USE the damn penalty. Now I realize it will make me seem like a monster,but let me explain. If we were to make executions public and broadcast their miserable deaths on every form of media,that will strike a chord in a criminal's mind. They will think."That could be me on live TV,just waiting to die." Some people you cannot rehabilitate and should be put down. I do not mean kill the person for stealing a loaf of bread,but for serious offenses such a murder,rape,treason,people that commit serious crimes repeatedly,child molesters and other such monsters should be killed on live TV and be live streamed so their miserable lives can be ended and the populace is just a little safer.

To Janus,I do not like to see an innocent suffer,but at the same time when the guilty walk free it is maddening,but executing a person is quick,clean and final. Maybe I am a monster,but I believe that if people know they will die for a serious offense,that will cut down on crimes. Canada is not like the US. They do not have our diversity,nor our problems with said diversity. We in the US have the sickening honor of having more lowlifes than Canada. Plus I think more Canadians respect law and order than Americans.

To Morsalbus,I disagree with you on cost. It actually costs more to house,feed,clothe,and care for a criminal than it does to educate a child. Think about that for a moment. It costs more to jail an inmate than it does to educate a child. That sickens me. We do not invest enough in our children,but are investing in criminals.

Execution does not need to be expensive. Just load a weapon with hollow points,aim for a vital area and pull the trigger. It is far more cost effective than lethal injection,the executioners do not have to be trained like they would have to be for lethal injection. Now I understand that yes,they could miss and gut shoot the guy,but when a box of ammo is far less than the drug cocktail,and it is quicker,it is probably better to go with firing squad. Now,I know that no one wants to be the one to end a life,they could put the bullets in the weapon at random,put blanks in the others,mix up the weapons and the squad selects their weapon and all of them fire at once,no one knows who fired the fatal shot.

Then you could do what the police do after a shooting,take that officer off duty,give them some counseling and have them return to duty later with a clear head. The money that is spent to jail an inmate could be spent better on programs to help people or to pay down the debt. I think execution is a necessary tool,and should be kept in force.

Thank you all for listening to me and if you wish to dislike the post or send me a nasty message,feel free.

Oldschool777: 
Your ideas about what kind of lowlife gets imprisoned in the United States is kind of silly. You look at criminals like cartoon villains who simply always want to commit crimes, instead of a more realistic actual human being. The vast majority of incarcerated Americans are religious people who don't spend all their time thinking about crimes they want to commit, and most murders are not committed in cold blood by serial killers, but in hot blood by impulsive people who walked in on lovers cheating on them, or got in a fight that got out of control, etc... Public executions won't cut down on crimes like this because the people who commit these crimes never planned to. And even those who planned to were 100% sure they wouldn't be caught.

I also take serious issue with your idea of using execution to punish any crime other than murder. I don't like rape, and I don't like rapists, but consider this: If you start punishing rape with execution instead of prison, then you have incentivised murder. If rape already carries the death penalty, then there is every reason for a rapist to murder their victim after the rape to remove the witness. That's why we have graduated punishments like this. "Hanging horse thieves" may make a few people stop stealing horses, but it will make even more horse thieves murder witnesses so they don't get caught.

As to the cost of imprisonment, I won't deny that it does cost on average about three times as much per year to imprison an inmate than to educate a child, but as I said before, death row inmates cost even more per year, to the tune of an extra $90,000. Executions are cheap, yes, but appeal cases are not, and if you decide to deny convicts the right to appeal then you are simply un-American. Due process is a right of all American citizens.

Also, if you're so worried about how much prison costs, you should really focus on non-violent drug offenses, which make up a much larger portion of our prison system than violent criminals, and often become more likely to become dangerous after going to prison. If we ended the drug war and stopped giving 20 year sentences for millions of nonviolent drug offenders, you would reduce violent crime rates and saves enough taxpayer money to kill all the real lowlife scum you want. The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world, but it's not because "Americans don't respect the laws." It's because American companies and judges profit by sending people to jail over crimes that should only warrant a fine or community service. It's not because of our "diversity" but because of our corruption.

You aren't a monster, you're just wrong.

Some people are hardwired to commit crime after crime,that is all they know and in a sick way,it works for them. Hear me out,they get a cell,free laundry service,3 meals a day,a chance to workout in the yard,access to education,and they do not have to pay their way except for personal items or treats. Yes,I know it is a simplified way of looking at it,but you have to admit it makes sense.

I must disagree with you. If we broadcast someone's death,it drills into the populations' heads that there is justice and that some must pay the ultimate price. Will it deter everyone? No. But it will strike a chord in some people and give them something to think about. No crime is perfect,there will always be something they did wrong. I know that sometimes a death happens on impulse,but we all must bear responsibility for out actions,be they intentional or not.

For rapists,I guess we could cut off their junk and toss it in a meat grinder and make the son of a 8itch watch it. But still,I would want them dead and gone,because they have committed a very heinous crime,one that should never happen. I was always taught that a man should be a woman's protector. If a man rapes a woman,he is no longer a man,he is nothing but a waste of space and should be disposed of.

We can give them 1 chance to appeal,I do not wish to be unfair. And when that appeal is denied then you execute them. That was we are being fair and we save money. I agree that drug offenses do make up a large segment of the population,but most do not learn and truthfully are useless to their families and to society in general if they keep doing the same action that gets them arrested. Community service only works on people that have just started to go bad,not people that keep messing up. Fines only work if the person actually learns a lesson,which sadly most do not learn.

I agree the drug war is an abysmal failure,it is akin to Prohibition and we all know well that worked. I do not necessarily agree to legalize drugs,but I think the best way is to actually outright destroy the property used to make the drugs,kill the snakes that make them and sell them (in my mind,they are nothing but scum and no one would mourn their deaths) and education. I do support programs to help someone clean up,but after so many tries,they are incapable of learning.

Maybe I am wrong,but at least we can try to thin the herd a bit.

For the most part, I am going to have to agree with death over prison life.  To the person who said "Boston bombers and isis"  I hope you realize that was the government, and yes, they should be put to death very quickly, or it will continue to always be a problem. 

Oldschool, I agree with you in that people who commit the crimes they do, know that they are doing it and should be punished accordingly.  I'm not sure if public execution would be best, but I think it might be worth a shot to show that we mean business when it comes to violent crimes.  I think that the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment.  I have seen men hang for over 10 minutes before they die.  I have seen people shot multiple times before they die.  I have never seen genitals cut off, but I think that could be an option as well 

Morsalbus, the rapist is caught regardless of the murder that ensues, and many times, the victim commits suicide.  We have specialists who know what to look for and how to look for it.  I know it may take months or years to find them, and some have never been found, but even a rape/murder deserves the most severe punishment, and when it comes to children, they should have a slow death, because that child will live with that for as long as they can take it.

A swift death is a psychopath's quick way out of doing something they really wanted to do and hoped they never get caught for.  Some people are just not meant for this world yet.  I say bring back the noose and make it public.  Lets see how it works while they hang as they have certain parts of them cut off

Just remember,you actually need someone that actually knows what they are doing with the noose in how to tie it,how to position the knot of the noose and how far the body must drop to break the neck. I think there used to be tables on how much rope you need,and how far the body must drop according to weight,but the general rule of thumb was the heavier the body,the shorter distance you needed to drop them. If we going to do this,let us do it right at least.

I think the death penalty is not right in a lot of cases. The death penalty, in my opinion, should only be used when there is overwhelming evidence that the person committed a crime. This can't be any crime, it has to have been some crime which got people killed. You can execute someone if they'd didn't take a life themselves. 

Morsalbus : I agree with most of your points, dude. You made a great point about how it would give incentive for murder. I don't think you can trust the government with the killing of potentially innocent people. 

Oldschool777 : I get some of your points, but why should someone who raped someone be executed? I'm not saying rape is OK, but if they didn't kill someone, they shouldn't be killed themselves. They should still be punished severely, but execution is a bit much. 

I am sorry,Rday,but rape is a heinous crime,often times the victim wishes they were dead,and in some cases they are broken beyond help. Monsters like rapists deserve a slow and cruel death.

I believe that the death penalty should only be applied to the worst kinds of people, like isis or serial killers, and even then, it should only be done as a last resort when there is no other way to try and get them back into normal society safely.  It should also be applied after there is sufficient evidence that the serial killer/rapist/terrorist has commited the crime.