Homework Help

Do you believe in the death penalty? I personally think it is wrong.do you belive in...

user profile pic

sfg13165 | Student, College Freshman | Honors

Posted March 25, 2010 at 10:47 AM via web

dislike 2 like
Do you believe in the death penalty? I personally think it is wrong.

do you belive in the death penalty, I personally think it is wrong

73 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted March 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

I, myself, am very conflicted on this issue.

On one hand, I totally believe that there are some people who deserve to die.  I believe that there are some crimes that are so horrific that the people who commit them have given away their right to be human beings any longer.

The problem to me is that neither I nor any other human is, in my opinion, qualified to determine who should live and who should die.  It seems too arbitrary -- why should one murderer live and another die?  It gives too much room for prejudice and things like that to enter into the decisions of the people who decide whether to execute a criminal.

For example, how could I know if I voted to execute that person because they really did something terrible or because their victim reminded me of my kid?  So what if their victim didn't remind me of my kid?  Does that make the crime less bad?  It's too hard to be objective...

user profile pic

ako6777 | Middle School Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted March 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

I am conflicted with this topic as well.  I believe there are many people who will never be rehabilitated and will continue to commit heinous crimes against society.  My problem with the death penalty is that I could never agree to kill someone's son, daughter, parent, or sibling.  By sentencing someone to death, you hurt more than the guilty. 

user profile pic

Doug Stuva | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted March 25, 2010 at 7:05 PM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

Looking at the issue from a practical point of view, the death penalty is a gazillion times more expensive than a life sentence, and most of the evidence I've seen suggests that it does not constitute a deterrant to violent crime.  So, just from a practical point of view, I'm against it. 

user profile pic

bullgatortail | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Distinguished Educator

Posted March 25, 2010 at 8:14 PM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

I am very much in favor of keeping the death penalty in the United States. Although I don't believe that the threat of a death sentence necessarily works to stop would-be murders and rapists, I still believe it is an appropriate sentence for such cases. I see no reason to fill our prisons--at tax payers' expense--with people who refuse to follow the basic rules of a civilized society. I am actually in favor of using the death penalty for other crimes, particularly child rape or molestation. I believe that multiple repeat offenders of major crimes should also face the death sentence. A recent case in point: A Florida man was convicted of his 38th felony; he had been charged with more than 70 felonies within a 20 year penalty. He obviously will never allow himself to be rehabilitated, so I see execution as an appropriate alternative.

user profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted March 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

I am not opposed to the principle of the death penalty, and believe that in some cases, it is the only way to protect society - some people are simply that murderous, that dangerous.  BUT, it seems impossible to guarantee that we will only execute the guilty, and never the innocent.  I can say this because we have executed innocents on a few dozen occasions that we know about.  There exists no legal system that can guarantee this, and because of this, I think the death penalty sbould be abolished.

user profile pic

booksnmore | College Teacher | (Level 3) Adjunct Educator

Posted March 25, 2010 at 9:22 PM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

I do think it is wrong...for a lot of reasons. But the one that I agonize over is the fact that we know that so many innocent people have been put to death. Humans make mistakes. We cannot get away from continuing to make mistakes in this area. And even one wrongful death is too many.

Another reason? The cost. The appeals go on and on. Seems like it would be less expensive to just say "life in prison" and be done with the death penalty appeal process.

user profile pic

lynn30k | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted March 28, 2010 at 9:54 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

I am against the death penalty as well, for a lot of the reasons the other posters have stated. But also, even if we as a society are saying that this person's crimes are that horrible, it still doesn't make our murdering him/her OK. Do we all bear collective guilt for the decision?

user profile pic

hannahshychuk | College Teacher | (Level 2) Adjunct Educator

Posted March 28, 2010 at 7:18 PM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

I am against it, for several reasons, many of which have already been mentioned. I feel that the fact that many innocent people have been wrongly executed is reason enough that the death penalty should be abolished. I also take issue with advocating murder as punishment. If murder is wrong and unacceptable, which is largely agreed upon, why should it be considered acceptable as a form of punishment? I am also against it for practical reasons, such as its high price. All around, it just does not seem like the best option.

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted March 28, 2010 at 9:38 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

If we are ready to kill hundreds of thousands of people in war on other countries, I dont see the logic of putting to death some someone established to be an evil person who has committed serious crimes against others.

Yes we must exercise extreme caution and restraint to make sure that we are making no mistakes in condemning a person. Also we must act in the spirit of reforming people and protecting the society, rather than taking revenge. But as long as we continue to accept mass killing in war, we canoot be sincerly opposed to capital punishment on the grounds of concern for human life and compassion.

user profile pic

geosc | College Teacher | (Level 3) Assistant Educator

Posted March 29, 2010 at 5:31 AM (Answer #11)

dislike 0 like

The purpose of judicial punishment is supposed to be the protection of society; by punishing criminals, people who are not yet criminals but would be if not given some strong reason not to be, are thereby given the reason they need.  Someone wicked enough to commit murder can be deterred only by a very strong reason--knowing that he is likely to be executed if he commits murder.

But the way our present punishments are administered greately reduces their effectiveness as deterrents.  Punishment needs to be swift and sure to be an effective deterrent.  For a murder now-days, it may be months or years before the trial is held; if convicted, the murder may appeal for years before finally being executed.  The murderer may not even be convicted of murder because the prosecutor may bargain the charge down to some lesser offense in order to save money in the budget.

So, if punishment is not to be swift and sure, maybe it should not be execution. 

user profile pic

kirt-b | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted March 29, 2010 at 10:19 AM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like
Do you believe in the death penalty? I personally think it is wrong.

do you belive in the death penalty, I personally think it is wrong

i don't think thatit should be alowed ya some1 makes mistakes but give them an opertounity to right their worng.

user profile pic

danstenge | eNotes Newbie

Posted March 29, 2010 at 10:20 AM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like

I can argue both sides of the death penalty issue as both have merit. However, what I do not see much of is consistency. Many people are for the death penalty, yet are against abortion. This is not consistent. The same goes for those in favor of war.

If your argument is the sanctity of human life then no one is to be killed ever under any circumstances. If your argument is for societal safety then you must be careful to avoid the slippery slope into jungle law.

As for good and evil, who decides?

 

user profile pic

sfg13165 | Student, College Freshman | Honors

Posted March 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM (Answer #14)

dislike 0 like

When a person is sentenced to death for a serious crime, he\she is only getting the easy way out for all he has done. Instead he\she should have to carry the burden of having committed such a crime. A life sentence would be a more fitting punishment. I believe no one should have the power to take away another person’s life. For the right or wrong reasons, it’s just simply wrong to take away a life. As the old saying goes, two wrongs will never make a right. Although many people argue that a person who commits a crime as serious as murder should be getting an eye for an eye, such punishment would never right the wrong which has been done. The murder victim will never come back to life regardless of the judgment passed on the murderer.

user profile pic

charcunning | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Assistant Educator

Posted March 29, 2010 at 12:16 PM (Answer #15)

dislike 0 like

I, too, am agains the death penalty. I think it is an embarrassment that the USA is listed alongside countries such as China and Iran in the list of countries that still use capital punishment.

Facts prove it costs more to execute a prisoner (time on death row, appeals process) than it does to house them for life.

Sure, alive is, in some ways, better than dead, but only if "alive" means truly living. If one thinks that life in prison is better than death, perhaps people should listen to those who've been there. Freedom is just outside the door, a door you can never leave.

I would much rather a criminal sit and rot in jail than be "free" via death.

user profile pic

Michelle Ossa | College Teacher | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted April 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM (Answer #16)

dislike 0 like

I think that as long as it is justifiable there is no reason why I need to use my already utra taxed tax dollars to offer a murderer or rapist 3 meals a day, and a roof over their heads.

Like the saying says, the less dogs, the less fleas. And some of these reptiles who kill children or hurt them (for example) need not to be stealing my oxygen here on Planet Earth.

user profile pic

sfg13165 | Student, College Freshman | Honors

Posted April 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM (Answer #17)

dislike 0 like

I think that as long as it is justifiable there is no reason why I need to use my already utra taxed tax dollars to offer a murderer or rapist 3 meals a day, and a roof over their heads.

Like the saying says, the less dogs, the less fleas. And some of these reptiles who kill children or hurt them (for example) need not to be stealing my oxygen here on Planet Earth.

do you really feel like that? you have no right to call any hman being a reptile, no matter what they have done.

user profile pic

geosc | College Teacher | (Level 3) Assistant Educator

Posted April 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM (Answer #18)

dislike 0 like

It is a sort of sick sentimentality that gives more consideration for the criminal than for the victim.  Even if the criminal was an abused child and can act no other way than to commit crimes, he is still a threat to society.  It is society and civilization that must be protected, not just the individual victim and much less the individual criminal.  There are other potential criminals among the population, that were abused as children, and as a charity to those others, in order to help them resist a life of crime, to protect them from the executioner, the criminal already known to be guilty should be executed so that the example will deter those others.

user profile pic

beefheart | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted April 3, 2010 at 1:26 AM (Answer #19)

dislike 0 like

The Death Sentence is not an appropriate act for a civilised government.

Killing people is wrong. Even if that person is a dangerous rampaging sociopath, killing them is not a justifiable act. Revenge is not justice.

Many people here have advocated the death penalty for its convenience; ie. death solves the problem of what to do with anti-social people. Some people here are even advocating the death penalty because it's CHEAPER!  

"Hey, you know what? Kill him, it'll save us a few tax dollars and he'll be off our hands!"

Now that's a civilised justice system! (irony)

user profile pic

geosc | College Teacher | (Level 3) Assistant Educator

Posted April 5, 2010 at 5:46 AM (Answer #20)

dislike 0 like

Post 19 misses the point.  The death penalty is not given for revenge.  The death penalty is given for the protection of society and the preservation of civilization.  The person who has already committed murder is relatively unimportant.  The people who will commit murder if not presented with a sufficient deterrent are important.  So is it important to save the potential victims of these potential murderers.  The death penalty is the strongest deterrent that can be given to these potential murderers.  Think for a moment what sort of character it would take to be able to commit murder, then realize that the deterrent must be strong.

It is an uncivilized, or a less civilized, government that fails to use this way of protecting its civilization, its society, and its citizens.

user profile pic

beefheart | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted April 5, 2010 at 6:50 AM (Answer #21)

dislike 0 like

The death penalty is the strongest deterrent that can be given to these potential murderers. - geosc

A completely unsubstantiated urban myth. There has never been any study which could prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, quite the contrary, in fact. The social work done with murderers, psychos, sociopaths and serious criminals suggests that they are not deterred from violent crime by the thought of severe punishment.

The Death Penalty is NOT a deterrent. It is, beneath all the stentorian claims of firm justice, a visceral and satisfying use of terminal violence against those we fear. It is a self-indulgence to give us a sense of power over people who refuse to conform to civilised behaviour.

It is an act of revenge.  

user profile pic

teacher2011 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Adjunct Educator

Posted April 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM (Answer #22)

dislike 0 like

As a young boy, I was captivated by a local news story of a murder that occurred in my family’s small town.  A man was convicted and sentenced to death.

 

Approximately, twenty years later the convicted killer is still appealing his death sentence and as a spectator of the news stories it is interesting to see how new arguments about the lack of modern forensic science practices in the initial investigation surface. Essentially, we hear arguments along the lines of this, “If the investigation would have occurred today…”

 

As forensic science continues to develop this becomes a never-ending argument.  The death penalty in this case has been incredibly costly and long. In my opinion, too long. The death penalty should be carried out in a much swifter and efficient nature if it is to continue.

user profile pic

treedreamer | eNoter

Posted April 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM (Answer #23)

dislike 0 like
I am always confounded by the irony of the death penalty. We punish someone who has taken life by then taking a life. It's a difficult issue because i imagine that if someone we loved was killed terribly then we would long for the justice we could only feel from eye-for-an-eye. Yet i doubt it really would ease the pain of loss - not long term anyway. Personally and ethically, i am not comfortable with the death penalty but then again, i have had no reason to feel it's necessity at a personal level. Likely that would sway the vote!
user profile pic

steven102 | Student | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 7, 2010 at 4:33 PM (Answer #24)

dislike 0 like

some people deserve death penalties but it is wrong

user profile pic

geosc | College Teacher | (Level 3) Assistant Educator

Posted April 22, 2010 at 6:05 AM (Answer #25)

dislike 0 like

In reply to Post 21:

"There has never been any study which could prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, quite the contrary, in fact."  I went to a nearby university library to check out this statement.  WRONG.  There have been many studies which prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.  There is one recent study that calls them into question.  I gave it a cursory read, and even in that brief review, I found a glaring error in its methodology: it counted all murders whether or not they were premeditated.  Deterrence can only work when a person thinks.  Deterrence can not affect one who kills in the heat of passion, as when he is drunk and another drunk insults his culture, or his mother, and he reacts without thought.

"The social work done with murderers, psychos, sociopaths and serious criminals suggests that they are not deterred from violent crime by the thought of severe punishment."  If the murder committed his murder in a jurisdiction which inflicts a swift and sure death penalty for murder, then it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, that he was not deterred by the death penalty: he has been convicted of it; he is in prison for it.  I was speaking of all those who are not in prison and cannot be worked with by social workers because they were deterred by the death penalty from committing a murder.  Of those who did commit murder, a question must be asked: Did they commit it in a jurisdiction which actually carries out the death penalty, or one which either has it on the books and does not enforce it, or allows appeals running for many years, or enforces it or not much as a lottery drawing?  What does not happen cannot be a deterrent.  What is only talked about cannot deter.

If only one murder victim can be saved by the death penalty, how can a healthy society let silly, sick, sentimentality condemn that person to death by saving from death the convicted murderer?

user profile pic

copelmat | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted May 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM (Answer #26)

dislike 0 like

Although I agree with the above individuals who suggest that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous and horrific of crimes. Unfortunately, there are rare instances when the only way to serve justice is to permanently remove the offender.

user profile pic

mstultz72 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted May 11, 2010 at 6:52 AM (Answer #27)

dislike 0 like

I agree with #4 and disagree with #5.  The death penalty, with all its appeals, legal fees, and execution room preparation, is much more expensive than keeping an inmate in prison for life.

Not to mention that the death penalty is immoral.  Revenge is an ancient and base notion.  It does not breed the ethical, moral, or religious ideals that we claim to uphold in any of our major religions.

It find the death penalty decidedly un-American.  Again, it does not promote the democratic ideals and freedoms that we echo in the chambers of our courtroom, Congress, or Houses.  It is an inhumane form of torture.

 

user profile pic

marbar57 | Elementary School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted May 12, 2010 at 9:46 AM (Answer #28)

dislike 0 like
Do you believe in the death penalty? I personally think it is wrong.

do you belive in the death penalty, I personally think it is wrong

  Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether anybody has the right to deprive another human being of their life!  Is it any more wrong for someone to willfully and wantonly kill someone than for us to make that person pay for their crime by the death penalty?  Would it be right for a murderer to expect to not have to pay for their crime by maybe being deprived of their own life as payment?  Isn't it cruel to the surviving members of the deceased to have to watch that person who robbed them of their loved one keep on living?  Do I believe in the death penalty?  Yes, I do but allow others their own opinions in the matter.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted May 12, 2010 at 2:23 PM (Answer #29)

dislike 0 like

There have been many studies which prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. geosc

There have?

user profile pic

xlaurenbx | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM (Answer #30)

dislike 0 like

I don't believe in the death penalty, if they were killed then we would be just as bad as the murderers and that isn't a good thing because then we are classed as murderers, whether it is life for a life or just for another crime it is still wrong...It also isn't fair because there might be someone that has beeen wrongfully accused of something and it is not fair on their family's we wouldn't like it if it happened to someone in ours...

user profile pic

mylifeiscertainlynotaverage | Student, Grade 10 | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 15, 2010 at 12:07 AM (Answer #34)

dislike 0 like

Well I agree with many of you in that I am conflicted on the issue however I believe that if they are, let's say, serial killers and have taken the lives of many innocent people, why should they have any right to their own life? Why should they be able to live after they have taken away the lives of other?

user profile pic

hala718 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted May 15, 2010 at 6:49 PM (Answer #35)

dislike 0 like

Well, it actually depends on the crime and the criminal.. we could not simply propose a solid rule and decide who and who is not excuted... Like many of yoy said, there are people deserve to die and life in preson would not deter some crominal from doing a crime, and if we simply rule the death penalty out there will be more crime. Thios way criminal will think twice before doing their crime...

user profile pic

kathyzip | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 16, 2010 at 9:57 AM (Answer #36)

dislike 0 like
Do you believe in the death penalty? I personally think it is wrong.

do you belive in the death penalty, I personally think it is wrong

  I think I am a lot too late.  However think about whether the death penalty is revenge?  Is revenge right?  Check out the movie which is British called, "The Last Executioner".  This will help you make your paper.

user profile pic

nabila25 | Middle School Teacher | eNoter

Posted May 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM (Answer #37)

dislike 0 like

I am against it, for several reasons, many of which have already been mentioned. I feel that the fact that many innocent people have been wrongly executed is reason enough that the death penalty should be abolished. I also take issue with advocating murder as punishment. If murder is wrong and unacceptable, which is largely agreed upon, why should it be considered acceptable as a form of punishment? I am also against it for practical reasons, such as its high price. All around, it just does not seem like the best option.

hi hanah... I'm too against what we call the death penalty because we were created by god and only god who has the will to decide that person must died by his order not by the decition of the other, i'm really choked that there are many countries stay  executing the death penalty  

user profile pic

schoolgirl24 | Student, Grade 10 | eNoter

Posted May 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM (Answer #38)

dislike 0 like

I think that the death penalty is way too harsh when it comes to a punishment. Whether or not a criminal killed someone should not make you as low as they are by killing them. In my opinion I think they should suffer and realize their mistake. Sometimes people would get killed even if they were innocent and that is another reason why a person should not have a death penalty. Many mistakes have been made. Criminals should pay the price with suffering not death. No suffering will leave everyone unhappy including the victim's loved ones. I know that if someone killed a member of my family I would want the person to suffer not die. Well hope this was interesting enough.

user profile pic

mikehawak | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 18, 2010 at 7:38 AM (Answer #39)

dislike 0 like

HI

user profile pic

mikehawak | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 18, 2010 at 7:39 AM (Answer #40)

dislike 0 like

I  LIKE THIS

 

user profile pic

mikehawak | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 18, 2010 at 7:39 AM (Answer #41)

dislike 0 like

THIS IS FUN

 

user profile pic

francais123 | Student, Grade 9 | eNoter

Posted May 20, 2010 at 3:09 AM (Answer #42)

dislike 0 like

Simply, death penalty is a crime which wanted to fixed a crime

user profile pic

linda-allen | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted May 20, 2010 at 5:59 AM (Answer #43)

dislike 0 like

It's not a matter of believing in it. Of course, I believe in it because it does happen. What you need to ask is whether I approve of the death penalty. My answer to that is yes. I believe that there are crimes that are so heinous that the persons who committed them deserve to forfeit their lives. Just this week there was a news story about a 4-year-old boy who was on a court-ordered visit with his mother and was beaten to death by his stepfather. The boy had begged his father not to send him to his mother, but the father had no choice. Does that stepfather deserve to live?

user profile pic

dcoylaxer | Student, Grade 10 | eNotes Newbie

Posted May 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM (Answer #44)

dislike 0 like

I believe in the death penalty. God told the Isrealites to use the death penalty in for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24)

The world is different than Isreal in ancient times but the concept is the same. The punishment deters people from crime. I believe that to save an innocent victim is better than saving a killer.

It is the same reason a parent warns of a punichment before a crime. Before a child takes a cookie, he knows he will get a spank. So he does not take the cookie. The death penalty is the same thing on a much bigger scale.

 

user profile pic

eslamgewshy | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 27, 2010 at 6:36 AM (Answer #45)

dislike 0 like

you can find the best answer in emily dickenson poetry in general.and especially in her poem(because i couldn't stop for death).in this poem she considers death as a very gentle and kind suitor who comes in a very beatiful carriage and softly calls for her.in the time all of us treat with death as a distress and awful thing that takes us from life,dickenson sees it a gentle thing to whom we must respect and believe.

death is true and inevitable matter.whether we accept or refuse it .it will stand as truth .so we should treat with it like dickenson did.

every soul will taste the favor of death,so dont be sticked to life....

user profile pic

swimma-logan | Student, College Freshman | Valedictorian

Posted May 28, 2010 at 4:15 AM (Answer #46)

dislike 0 like

While the basic premise behind it - killing to stop killing - is flawed, it is still an effective deterant. Don't fix what isn't broken.

user profile pic

ssdude2004 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM (Answer #47)

dislike 0 like

I would much rather have someone given the death penalty than have them waste tax dollars by spending their whole lives in prison.

user profile pic

ssdude2004 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted May 29, 2010 at 12:46 AM (Answer #48)

dislike 0 like

I would much rather have someone be given the death penalty than have them waste our tax dollars by spending their whole lives in prison.

user profile pic

brandi1073 | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted June 1, 2010 at 12:08 PM (Answer #49)

dislike 0 like

I do not think people should be put to death because then your just killling someones son, daughter, sibling, etc. I do believe that if they commit a felony they should rot in prison for the rest of their lives.....

user profile pic

rushma | Student, College Freshman | eNotes Newbie

Posted June 3, 2010 at 11:13 PM (Answer #50)

dislike 0 like

i think death practice is not at all a good think to practice coz evryone deserve one last chance. The chance should be given to him and he/she should be punished only if he/she repeat the same mistake expecting a different result 

user profile pic

truechild4real | Student, Grade 10 | eNotes Newbie

Posted June 8, 2010 at 11:37 AM (Answer #51)

dislike 0 like

to be truthfull  and barbaric.

i am not a person who holds back so don't expect me to apologise if this hurts anyone. God put us here on earth. He can take away who he wants , when he wants. We do NOT decide that, no matter how important you think of yourself

there are some people who deserve to die. i will admit that. they deserved to be punished to the highest extent. Now, my theory is unless you are mad, or just retarted to the highest order, it is possible for you to change. we are humans. we were given our own minds. it is very stupid to kill someone just because the cost will be too high to keep them there, or they'll commit the same crime again. that is what the freaking prisons are for. to punish those that are meant to be punished. the bible says "spare the rod and spoil the child" not "kill the child and not have to worry about breaking the rod."

only God alone decides who to loive and to die. because whether or not, no matter how you want to say it, i am sating this to every lawyer and judge that is on this site, if you go through with that penalty, you have killed a child.

if you like, say it was for the greater good and safety of humanity, you have killed a someone's child. you have killed a child because you didn't have to offer that penalty but you did. you could have offered 50 years in prison but you preferred to end the life of another man's child and you all that justice. if that;s justice then this whole legal system is crap!

user profile pic

lit24 | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted June 10, 2010 at 6:05 AM (Answer #52)

dislike 0 like

I'm in complete agreement with you in asserting that I do not support the death penalty. The death penalty is based on 'an eye for an eye' policy, which according to me is basically uncivilized. A civilized society should aim to correct and rehabilitate the delinquents in it and not send them to the electric chair or the gas chamber.

user profile pic

rzvandy | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted June 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM (Answer #53)

dislike 0 like

I do often feel that there are certain people without whom society would benefit, however, I do not think it is okay to kill people, even those who have committed murder themselves - doesn't that make us just like them? Life and death is not a topic where the 'an eye for an eye' theory should be in play, the value of life is much to high for that. Also, who decides what sort of person deserves to be punished by death, which circumstances and context determine whether the punishment should be life sentence or death?

I do also strongly feel that the prison systems in the majority of the world need to be relooked at. Someone commented that the prisons don't provide good rehabilitation and that our taxes are going toward nothing when criminals are rereleased into our society, still as criminals. Much like in primary schools, there is no point putting the child in the corner and telling them that they have done wrong without ensuring that they fully understand why what they have done is wrong, and offering them help if they don't. Locking criminals up in prisons where the cells are stingy and cold and the food is bad will only work for those who are used to a lifestyle of luxury - most criminals probably don't. We need to ensure that the criminals are getting the appropriate rehabilitation and counselling to ensure that they are able to re-enter society without feeling estranged from it and feeling inclined to repeat criminal offences.

user profile pic

rlgreen | High School Teacher | eNoter

Posted June 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM (Answer #54)

dislike 0 like

I oppose the death penalty because it is the one punishment that requires perfect justice in a world where perject justice is impossible.  One person executed wrongly is enough to overturn every death penalty law ever written.

user profile pic

dano7744 | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator

Posted June 24, 2010 at 12:24 AM (Answer #55)

dislike 0 like

An ancient tenet of the criminal justice system was "an eye for an eye". Retribution and "payback" are ingrained into the psyche. Most authorities agree that the death penalty has absolutely no detterent effect on criminality.

Many years ago two lawyers, Sheck and Neufield, started what they call the "Innocence Project". Law students look at cases in which the defendant was sentenced to death, they re-examine these cases and review the evidence and so forth. I can't recall the exact number, but they have basically saved Dozens of convicted felons from death because they proved the suspect was innocent!!!!!

This is my fear... what if we execute someone who is in fact innocent???

user profile pic

takshsdhody | Student, Grade 9 | Honors

Posted June 27, 2010 at 12:24 AM (Answer #56)

dislike 0 like

i am totally against death penalty as the main objective of punishing a person is to correct him so that the world becomes a better place to live. instead of death penalty the person should be treated should me made qualms people had to face because of him. Him conscience will not let him live in peace. this is the best punishment one can get

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted June 28, 2010 at 12:15 PM (Answer #57)

dislike 0 like

I believe in the death penalty. God told the Isrealites to use the death penalty in for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24) - Dcoylaxer

Mmmm, but God's a bit schizophrenic, isn't he? Cos then he says, "Thou shalt not kill", so really it's all a bit confusing. Does God know what he wants?

Besides which, (and this is just a teensy-weensy little nit-picking quibble) Isn't The Justice System supposed to be separate from Religion? What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend got to do with the modern pursuit of justice? Didn't we all agree in The Constitution that religious guidelines have squit to do with The Law?

user profile pic

peanut11188 | Student, Undergraduate | eNoter

Posted July 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM (Answer #58)

dislike 0 like

I believe in the death penalty. God told the Isrealites to use the death penalty in for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24) - Dcoylaxer

Mmmm, but God's a bit schizophrenic, isn't he? Cos then he says, "Thou shalt not kill", so really it's all a bit confusing. Does God know what he wants?

Besides which, (and this is just a teensy-weensy little nit-picking quibble) Isn't The Justice System supposed to be separate from Religion? What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend got to do with the modern pursuit of justice? Didn't we all agree in The Constitution that religious guidelines have squit to do with The Law?

The Hebrew word for Murder is ratsach in Exodus 20:13 which means to

4) slayer (intentional) (participle StrongsH 7523

What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend?

This arguement is from pure Ad Hominem fallacy as to imply that believers in God are morons. Secondly to use arguements that a belief in God to santa Clause is a false analogy let alone imaginary friend pot shot. Finally the so called claim seperation of Church and state is not in the constitution but defined by the supreme Court. To call Jews desert nomads is racial profiling thats like saying Arabs are towelheads for wearing turbans.

 

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted July 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM (Answer #59)

dislike 0 like

@58 Peanut! :-o are you suggesting the bible is full of translation errors and cannot be relied upon? So why should we base our ultimate sanction (the death penalty) on such an unreliable and old source? The word of God contains Human Errors! Heaven forbid! And... quelle surprise... all those 'translation errors' are usually used to justify Christian desires for unchristian behaviour. For example, did you know that the passage where jesus says, "turn the other cheek' is a translation error and some modern bible scholars now believe he really said, 'carpet bomb anyone who denies me back into the stone age'.  

To call Jews desert nomads is racial profiling thats like saying Arabs are towelheads for wearing turbans.

lol, That's a vast over-reaching, absurd accusation! :-) I said the person who created the bible stories was a desert nomad, because... he was a early bronze age, desert nomad. I didn't even say that person was a Jew! For all We know he was Assyrian, Hittite, Palestinian, Samarian, Numibian, Greek, Mixed Race, Persian, Pheonician etc. I never mentioned race AT ALL. So launching a charge of racial stereotyping is not only ridiculously unfounded and but it also seriously undermines your assertion that...

[it is] a pure Ad Hominem fallacy as to imply that believers in God are morons.

(And by the way, I absolutely disagree with your ten commandment translation; the correct translation according to Wilversham, Pollock, Redsmith et al 1965, OUP, is Thou Shalt Not Hula on a Tuesday, and therefore should not be used to justify the death penalty.)

user profile pic

brightlance | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted July 2, 2010 at 4:12 AM (Answer #60)

dislike 0 like

It is really a topic that never gets solved.

But if you were to ask this question to a group of people out there, most would claim that they disagree, since it is the socially "right" thing to say. I do not completely agree with the idea of taking life. Who's to judge wheter one is to live or die. It does not seem right for a human to decide another human being is not worth living.

However, it does seem to be an effective scare.

Say all who murder a person, except for the case of manslaughter, get sentenced the death penalty in all parts of the world. Who would be brave enough to kill? Probably not that many. Such extreme methods would have effect in lowering crime rates across the nation. In this case it is a necessary evil... right?

Its really difficult to say what's right and what's wrong.

The death penalty is.. well a controversial topic thats for sure.

user profile pic

peanut11188 | Student, Undergraduate | eNoter

Posted July 3, 2010 at 11:06 AM (Answer #61)

dislike 0 like

@58 Peanut! :-o are you suggesting the bible is full of translation errors and cannot be relied upon? So why should we base our ultimate sanction (the death penalty) on such an unreliable and old source? The word of God contains Human Errors! Heaven forbid! And... quelle surprise... all those 'translation errors' are usually used to justify Christian desires for unchristian behaviour. For example, did you know that the passage where jesus says, "turn the other cheek' is a translation error and some modern bible scholars now believe he really said, 'carpet bomb anyone who denies me back into the stone age'.  

To call Jews desert nomads is racial profiling thats like saying Arabs are towelheads for wearing turbans.

lol, That's a vast over-reaching, absurd accusation! :-) I said the person who created the bible stories was a desert nomad, because... he was a early bronze age, desert nomad. I didn't even say that person was a Jew! For all We know he was Assyrian, Hittite, Palestinian, Samarian, Numibian, Greek, Mixed Race, Persian, Pheonician etc. I never mentioned race AT ALL. So launching a charge of racial stereotyping is not only ridiculously unfounded and but it also seriously undermines your assertion that...

[it is] a pure Ad Hominem fallacy as to imply that believers in God are morons.

(And by the way, I absolutely disagree with your ten commandment translation; the correct translation according to Wilversham, Pollock, Redsmith et al 1965, OUP, is Thou Shalt Not Hula on a Tuesday, and therefore should not be used to justify the death penalty.)

ok let us deal with your logical fallacies and appeals to ridicule in not addressing the arguements and strawmaning my position.

Your claim about Jesus carpet bombing anyone who denies him is a cheap shot and also a red herring fallacy that has nothing to do with the original arguement not to mention it is not substantiated using a historical method.

In regards to your comment on who wrote the bible it was written by Hebrews in the language of Paleo Hebrew the oldest form of Hebrew such as the Dead Sea Scrolls 300 BCE.

and Finally in regards to your citation of wilversham this is avoiding the arguement and you also failed at the exgesis of the text. All scholars who have translated the text agree the Hebrew word is not murder.

In all essence your arguement falls short of mere quote mining, strawman fallacies and Red Herrings and your lack of understanding of texual criticism and the historical method.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted July 3, 2010 at 1:39 PM (Answer #62)

dislike 0 like

logical fallacies, appeals to ridicule, mere quote mining, red herring fallacy, the exgesis of the text, strawman fallacies, Ad Hominem fallacy, blah, blah, blah. - The peanut.

Mmmmm... Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, isn't it? But the thing about logic, peanut, is that it is more than a collection of impressive sounding intellectual jargon.

My appeals to ridicule are due to the fact that quoting some anonymous, undemocratic, hand-me-down, bronze age mythology (i.e. the bible) to justify the death penalty for a 21st century, western, liberal democracy is ridiculous.  So, I appeal to ridicule. And I can call on respected members of society to support me in this...

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
Thomas Jefferson

Furthermore, my 'cheap shot' about carpet bombing is EXTREMELY relevant and in no way a red herring. You people insist on some obscure, ancient text as your keystone (the bible) and demand that we respect your religious heritage. But you don't actually want to adhere to the things that Jesus said, so, like a salmon thrashing in a bucket of shampoo, you wriggle and twist and slip and jump, trying to wrap your right-wing agenda round the teachings of a guy who was a hippie socialist. (and btw I love hippie socialists, so my comment wasn't a 'cheap shot', 'red herring', 'blue whale', 'racial profiling' or 'flying teapot')

When you play the 'translation error' card (because you found something in the bible you don't like), then you open a logical tornado.

THE BIBLE IS THE BIBLE. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO RE-WRITE IT TO SUIT YOUR RIGHT-WING, NEO-CON AGENDA. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. THE MOMENT YOU ADMIT THE BIBLE HAS GREY AREAS AND HUMAN FLOORS IS THE MOMENT MY SIDE WILL THROW IT IN THE BIN AS A PROVABLE WORK OF MAN.

The Bible, according to your side, is a pure and magical book written by God. Rewriting the bible instantly proves that it has been constantly rewritten, over and over again, throughout history. To admit it has errors is to admit it contains no unique, holy message, only human, political objectives.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

And all of this amusing squabbling doesn't change the fundamental fact that the death penalty is totally disconnected from what some guy wrote in hebrew on a leaf, several thousands years ago.

user profile pic

islandmarsh | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted July 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM (Answer #63)

dislike 0 like

I am very much opposed to the death penalty, but not for reasons of it not being just.

First, it's been applied unfairly in our society.  Too many innocent people have been on death row and too many of them were people with out adequate representation.  Once done, killing a person can not be undone.  It has also not been applied fairly across race boundaries.

But more than that, I truly believe it's not harsh enough for some people.  I'd much rather that they live their lives in a prison cell with no visitors and a life sentence that means life without parole.

The really good news about more states pushing for life without parole versus the death penalty is that the juries are more likely to convict.  Convict lives in terror for the rest of their life or goes crazy in solitaire, society doesn't spend 3 million on appeals and is rid of monster.

user profile pic

islandmarsh | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted July 7, 2010 at 7:48 PM (Answer #64)

dislike 0 like

I believe in the death penalty. God told the Isrealites to use the death penalty in for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24) - Dcoylaxer

Mmmm, but God's a bit schizophrenic, isn't he? Cos then he says, "Thou shalt not kill", so really it's all a bit confusing. Does God know what he wants?

Besides which, (and this is just a teensy-weensy little nit-picking quibble) Isn't The Justice System supposed to be separate from Religion? What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend got to do with the modern pursuit of justice? Didn't we all agree in The Constitution that religious guidelines have squit to do with The Law?

 Using the Bible to justify the Death Penalty is  a bit like using chocolate to cure alcoholism.  It doesn't make sense.  You cannot pick and choose random phrases from the Bible.  It is quoting out of context.  It does not take into account whom the writer was addressing and what wrongs were happening.

And, although our government is separate from religion, many laws have their foundation in religion.  Do not murder, do not take what is not yours.  Maybe I call it religion, maybe you call it social mores.  Either way.  You cannot dismiss that religion has had an impact on our laws.

user profile pic

dhpraiser | Elementary School Teacher | eNoter

Posted July 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM (Answer #65)

dislike 0 like

I too have strong beliefs about the death penalty. My beliefs are based on the Old Testament. Even then, there are exeptions for if it was accidental etc.

Rape? castrate  Child molestation: life in prison, but we let them off easy, so PINK license plate so eveyone knows what they have done, just as we do w/ DUI and the yellow plate.

But heinous murder and debauchery? Death penalty. Holloway case? Obviously can't be rehabbed. Wayne Gacey? death penalty

James dahmer-death penalty. SOme people need to pay for their crimes. I purposely kill someone, premeditated ( mentally ill or not) death penalty. The punishment matches the crime.

Infrequently there are extenuating circumstances, that is the time for mercy. But not on a regular being spineless basis.

user profile pic

dhpraiser | Elementary School Teacher | eNoter

Posted July 9, 2010 at 12:28 PM (Answer #66)

dislike 0 like

Simply, death penalty is a crime which wanted to fixed a crime

No, the death penalty is a CONSEQUENCE for someone who murders others.

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted July 9, 2010 at 2:12 PM (Answer #67)

dislike 0 like

I too have strong beliefs about the death penalty. My beliefs are based on the Old Testament. dhpraiser

How many times do you need to be told before you get the very easy and very simple facts? The ad hoc rules from your pre-historic book, (dreamt up god-knows-when by god-knows-who), mean absolutely sweet f.a. to the legal system of a 21st century democracy.

There is nothing in any statute which gives you the right to connect your unproven belief system to the painful, intellectual struggle for a meaningful legal code. 

Rape? castrate  Child molestation: life in prison, but we let them off easy, so PINK license plate so eveyone knows what they have done, just as we do w/ DUI and the yellow plate. But heinous murder and debauchery? Death penalty. Holloway case? Obviously can't be rehabbed. Wayne Gacey? death penalty.  - dhpraiser

Your blurred and sadistic little wish-list, apart from being Adolf Hitler's wet dream, is not part of 2,500 years of decent people's attempts to define just and fair legal process. Millions of people died to wrench legal power from the bloody clutches of religion. And you sit there, nestled under the umbrella of secular, democratic freedom, and you happily proclaim that you want to send us all back to The Dark Ages! Over my dead body!

The bible was stitched together millenia ago, outside of the territoral jurisdiction of The United States. It is not part of American Law. It does not conform to American Law. It is not relevant to American Law. If you wish it was, then may I suggest Saudi Arabia would be the right place for you. They still enforce the brutal and intolerant laws of your blood-thirsty God.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted July 12, 2010 at 3:12 AM (Answer #68)

dislike 0 like

I always get confused when Christians endorse the death penalty. I certainly don't claim to know the bible thouroughly, but even I know Christ went to an execution once, and the crowd was about to kill their prisoner and Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Now that is what Christ said. And it utterly countermands all the vicious, pre-Christian savagery in Dueteronomy and Leviticus. Christians follow Christ, not Levi. The old testament is NOT Christian.

So, it's nice to know that those Christians who are begging to be allowed to 'cast the first stone' have listened to Their Lord Jesus's words; humbly checked their own conscience; and can honestly say, with their hand on their heart, they are without sin. and... surely... They must be without sin, mustn't they? Because otherwise, if they were not perfect, then those pro-death Christians would be deeply unpleasant, sanctimonious hypocrites.

user profile pic

leazblack | Middle School Teacher | eNotes Newbie

Posted July 12, 2010 at 7:38 PM (Answer #69)

dislike 0 like

As far as I'm concerned I trully believe it's wrong.People say that it's a means of deterrence from violence.But some people would keep on killing for the simple reason that if the state has the right to kill why not me.Futhermore there are sometimes error of judgement.I prefer life sentence. 

user profile pic

antiel | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted July 15, 2010 at 9:26 PM (Answer #70)

dislike 0 like

I dont believe it is the responsibility of a human to sentence another human to death. As has been previously mentioned, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" even if you are not christian, this is a good philosophy to live by. Of course there are some people who for their own safety and the safety of others, must be removed from society. In such cases surely life inprisonment is the best and most humane option? Also, are we not creating murderers who are being paid to murder murderers? this does not make sense to me.

The Death sentence is an archaic method of punishment carried over from the  dark ages, and if most of the countries of the western world survive without the death penalty, why can America not seem to handle the concept?

user profile pic

tomrusso | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted July 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM (Answer #71)

dislike 0 like

While it is true that some innocent men and women have been put to death (both in our age and ages past), the system of laws we have here in the United States - as much as they may become bent - are still designed to protect the innocent insofar as is possible, whether that be from a wrongful verdict by jury, or from those individuals whom the jury should rightfully convict.

The vast majority of crimes don't merit, nor do they receive, capital punishment. However, it is a necessary "evil," as any cursory reading of national histories of the world may tell you. A small portion of people are simply bent on causing havoc, and feel they have the power to take someone else's life. Society, whether it feels this way or not, is formed on the tacit adherence to general laws and principles of good and neighborly conduct; the act of causing someone's death disrupts that.

If, after a trial by jury of one's peers, an individual is rightfully convicted of murder, it is within the rights of the law to sentence that person to death. And believe me, the sort of deaths most convicted criminals receive (at least in the United States) are relatively innocuous compared to centuries past.

Killing someone is wrong, but the death penalty is just that - a penalty - the severest punishment for the severest crime. I do not think the world will miss the few lousy scumbags who merit such a punishment.

user profile pic

msturlic | High School Teacher | eNoter

Posted July 21, 2010 at 8:56 AM (Answer #72)

dislike 0 like

I am against the death penalty.  I believe God is the giver of life and the one who should decide when it ends.  People, and oftentimes government, are too corrupt and there have been cases where innocent people have been executed. 

 No one is above rehabilitation, but I'm not saying that someone who has committed a heinous crime should be allowed out to possibly commit again.  Rather than spending millions of dollars for one criminal to go through the various appeals processes, that money would be better spent building more prisons to house criminals that commit terrible crimes and should not be allowed out ever again.  If a person is sentenced to life imprisonment, that's exactly what they should serve.

user profile pic

crmhaske | College Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted August 1, 2010 at 12:29 AM (Answer #74)

dislike 0 like

I am of the belief that the universe is deterministic, and in a deterministic world man is philosophically absolved of all personal responsibility. I essentially believe that choice is merely an elaborate illusion that is the result of our self-awareness of the mechanism.  At the end of the day, we have no control; no choice.

In theory I do agree with the death penalty, but not on the basis that some people deserve to die.  Deserve is a construct of our illusion of personal responsibilty.  On a purely theoretical level it is logical to remove from a society those that use of it, but do not contribute to it.  Why pay money to keep someone in prision indefinitely?  However, as soon as theory meets reality this all starts to break down.

Our justice system is not devoid of flaws, and in reality it is quite imporbable to prove with no margin of error that the person in question commited the crime in question.  A system in which the guilty are condemened to death needs to be a system that works flawlessly.  This is not the case.

A more realistic solution is to finely tune our psychological understanding to the point of the ability to actually rehabilitate, instead of merely incarcirating.

user profile pic

thewriter | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted August 18, 2010 at 10:18 AM (Answer #75)

dislike 0 like

Of course death penalty is wrong, and I do not say this because of any feeling of us not being the ones who should decide when a person's life ends, forgiveness and the alike.

I think death is too easy a punishment. How much would a person suffer in an hour or two that he is being hanged, given the poison injection, or in a gas chamber. Nothing, compared to what the impact is for those who suffer due to his actions.

I accept that no innocent person should ever suffer, but once convicted,  the punishment given to the criminal should be unimaginably tortuous. Something that will ensure no one who knows of what is happening to the criminal, would ever think of committing the same crime again. Something that is like death everyday. Not just once.

PS. Anyone wondering how I hold these views and am a teacher at the same time, I do not discuss these things with others and they are my private views.

user profile pic

numbskull-therom | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie

Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:40 PM (Answer #76)

dislike 0 like

*Where is the justice? People that receive the death penalty have gotten it due to their incorrect actions of murdering, not any other reason.

user profile pic

picturesque | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:44 AM (Answer #77)

dislike 0 like

One who commits a murder he must be sentenced to death there is no way that such a person should be pardoned of death penalty.

user profile pic

ik9744 | TA , Grade 9 | Valedictorian

Posted October 4, 2014 at 9:11 PM (Answer #78)

dislike 0 like

I think death penalty isn't wrong, because if you're sentence to it YOU deserve it. The problem is there's too much false witnesses to the point suspects get mixed up. There is a percentage that the person sentenced to death isn't the correct person. The percent isn't high but still isn't low. People might get sentenced to death for no reason. On the other hand, if you murder someone you would at least deserve a good 25 years of sentence. In my perspective ending someone's life painfully isn't right and should be punished. I personally think being in prison would let the person re-think what he/she did and change himself/herself. Thus meaning the most I would sentence someone is 50 years, due to the fact being behind bars that long would definitely change the person and over think how he or she could have changed the situation.

After reading the bible for a while, I remember somewhere says an eye for an eye or something similar to that. Meaning if you break something that isn't yours, you should break the one you have too. The bible says you shall not kill so it all comes to the perspective of the judge. Religion will be biased over the sentence. Some people would say, "I rather not see a murderer outside of jail again, because he will bring harm." If you think about being behind bars for a while, you probably won't murder someone again.

This is how a person's life would be if he/she didn't get sentenced to death:

The person's life would be so hard even if he or she gets out of jail. First of all it'll be very hard for him/her to find a job. People won't accept them because of the crime that they did. If the person is very famous for the crime [been all over news] people on the street would be scared to even come close to them. Some stores might not allow them to come in. For there life is ruin, because of the conviction they did.

Short Answer:

Yes, sentencing to death probably isn't right, but it all comes down to religious matters.Pros [Why death sentence is right]: The person would never get to murder someone, the Bible says not to murder, there life won't be in so much pain of people getting scared of them, and they deserve it for what they did.

Cons [Why death sentence is wrong]: The person would probably re-think what he or she did wrong and never do it again.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes