Should we use the 'Death Penalty' for serious crimes?

Well in this case it wouldnt be pointless, it could well be a matter of life and death. Surely if thats the case every last avenue should be tried before the death penalty is carried out? No matter how small or petty the new arguement seems to be surely it should be tried? I imagine if it was my life on the line, and I was innocent, I'd want to try every tiny possibility.



It may well have played a part in the short term, but as the two sources I showed you say, in the long run it doesnt appear to have any effect. I fanything it has a negative effect.



Some of the qualities yes, but why not go for a country with very similar qualities and cultures, rather than a tiny, one city country on the other side of the world?



Well if they are more trigger happy surely the only way to stop them would be to kill those who kill others with guns? Which they do... which doesnt work...

The second point would suggest what is needed the is greater education, not a blunt punishment?

I also quite like the saying MissesTwishes posted - "If we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well." If the state is killing people it gives it an air of normality as 'he ultimate punishment', something I suspect gangs may very well take to heart.

No, basing the death penalty on retribution is not about protecting society. That is accomplished once the criminal is imprisoned. No matter what you dress it up as, execution is a way of collectively venting our anger. We have been wronged and we have an urge to strike back and make the offender suffer. Why when someone is murdered do we feel we owe it to the family of the victim to avenge the death of their loved one? Vengeance cannot reverse the original act or heal the pain. Instead it arouses and legitimizes our own murderous impulses, how are we any different from the murderer? Just because his death was legal, we still willed it and wished for it, as he willed and wished for the death of his victim. Vengeance perpetuates and legitimises violence in society.

I'm just gonna address the Swiss point here. Education is important. But it happens BEFORE they get their weapon. To re-educate a mass murderer would be wrong.

I'm not a big fan of vigilantism either, yet it can be justified when criminals who you know to be absolutely guilty get away free.
Retributive justice is quite crude. Instead, punishments should be carried out through a strong, sensible justice system. The death penalty should be a means of punishment for a severe crime, not as retribution. The law isn't about that. Murder should be an executable offence plainly to uphold the sanctity of life.
Murderous impulses? The desire of the death of a brutal murderer is justified on the basis that they are getting away with what they've done, getting off lightly... smirking behind or outside bars. I believe unjustified killing is extremely wrong, and people who choose to kill people wrongfully are scum, they should die. They have no right to life for their denial of rightful life to another. However, only a few are truly deserving of the death penalty. I don't think all murderers should be executed.
I think death penalty opponents need to take a long, hard look at the actions of the worst murderers and sex offenders, and have a think about what it achieves by keeping them alive after what they've done, taking into account their character.

So far, the only arguments in favour of it appear to be:

"I HATE criminals.. Must KILL criminals... ARRRRGH... mind filled with so much HATE... must KILL...AAAAARRRRGGHHH"

But what does it achieve by killing them?

These people really deserve hatred.

Clearly, you're the man for the job.

Justice and closure.

Don't simplify it in such a manner. These people really deserve hatred, for the sheer malice and disregard for others they have shown.

Why wont locking the murderer behind bars for life achieve that?

I thought you said it wasn't about revenge and hatred?

Why wont locking the murderer behind bars for life achieve that?

Modern trials are hardly barbaric. Killing is not automatically barbaric. This term is overused, try again.

No. Because it's impossible to achieve reciprocation without putting them to death. Obviously.

It isn't, primarily. Yet inevitably what the criminal is responsible for is relevant... as well as the emotions evoked by their actions. If you're not motivated by negative emotions, a feeling of ill-doing, how can you render punishment at all?

Well if it's reciprocation that your after, what would be your punishment for a rapist? Or someone who commits GBH?

A prison sentence that fits the crime.

There is no length of prison sentence that fits murder.