Is the death penalty appropriate? Or should it be banned?

The death penalty is an outdated and barbaric form of punishment. It should be banned.

Yes, it should be banned.

For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals, but because it doesn't reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 150 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a big surprise to many people:
It's well known that the death penalty costs far more than life sentences. Not many people know why. The upfront part of the legal process, as well as appeals, are much more complex in death penalty cases, because the punishment sought is irreversible. We know that innocent people were executed in the past (in the US and elsewhere.) The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages and they apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):
Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty is no more effective in deterring others than life sentences.

Who gets it:
The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender.

Victims:
Like no other punishment, it subjects families of murder victims to a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

The death penalty comes down to retribution or revenge—the only plausible reasons to support it.

It's never appropriate because it turns Civilisation into a Militarized Society, which is quite a major step down.

Also the idea that we can get enough proof to justify it somehow is a false-hope, you can't put enough science, enough safeguards in place to be as sure as you should be, and that 'gamble' with people's life, isn't appropriate.

So yes it should be banned, it's cheaper, and more about JUSTICE, instead of revenge, that is again a sign of Civilisation(Justice), and Militarization(Revenge), Justice is about removing threats, and keeping society safe, and as unbroken as possible, Revenge is 'an eye for an eye', problem with that is, that even killing the guilty will break something in their friends, family, causing more tension, more unbalance, and in the end more violence.

The civilised world has abolished state murder - Europe, Australia. NZ, Canada etc - so it is in effect banned everywhere except in loos and septic tanks such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and your very own Uncle Sauron's @rsehole.

General usage of executions is a sign that a state is not entitled to any respect whatsoever, like a state that has an official religion or a monarch or something peculiar like that.

Executions are only for use in modern times on those who are hangovers from previous social systems - convicted slavers, the hereditary titled, warlords, that sort of thing. Use it against even the most heinous civil criminal and you are no better than he is.

Backwardness of that level cannot be tolerated.

The death penalty is an enormously-expensive penalty for a government to use, given the volumes of appeals that are (usually) mandated to go with it as a safeguard against an errant application of it. Also, even with the mandated appeals and the rest, there have been many instances recorded that show a person who was executed wasn't guilty of the crime (or, at the very least, that there was "reasonable doubt," a standard considered in any sentence).

Given the above alluded-to errors and expense, as well as the consideration that punishment in most countries is meant to act as a deterrent to crime and that there is little evidence that the death penalty has any stronger effect in this manner than a life sentence, it seems silly from multiple perspectives.

Yes I think they should stop the death penalty. Why? because killing someone is wrong even if the crime is very severe. Like Gandhi said "An eye for an eye makes the world blind". What we should do with the people who have committed very serious crimes is lock them up for life.

I've always been for the death penalty. The only thing I think that should be changed is that it must meet at least 1 of 3 criteria. Corroborating DNA or video evidence and/or (reliable) witness testimony.

No use for it.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Why should the government be able to decide to kill someone, but the citizen who killed another citizen cannot. Thats why people dont care if they kill someone. They know they wont have to suffer for it anyway.

Rape is a very Critical crime. so according to me death plenty is good for this type of Crime.

Death Penalty should be banned... WHY???
1) A quick easy death is not a punishment!
2) A miserable life behind bars, is worse than death !
3) The constant appeals are costly and time consuming.
4) There is the possibility that there really was an error. Has been proven on numerous occasions.
5) No one should have the power to decide the death of another human being,

I have read about enough crimes to feel that some people cannot be redeemed, and are just not worth keeping alive to breathe the same atmosphere as my children. It's actually more humane than damning them to a lifetime of alienation.

its appropriate, because some people deserve this .

Murder is against the law. So why should the Government be allowed to kill civilians when they think its OK?

There is a time and place for everything.

No, it is not appropriate in any situation whatsoever. having to decide to die or now is the only think mafia and gangmembers have in mind and that's not what the U.S. government shouldn't be about at all. In addition, having inmates on death row actually cost more money and time than having them housed for life in prison, because of the costs of spending on lawyers, pre-trials, evidence, take prisoners to court houses, and so on. Here in California, we spent at least $4.5 billions on death row, yet we have the lowest execution rate in this state. It's a travesty that such activity occur like this in a situation that could have been saved and useful.

-No. It's not even Intelligent. And THAT's why it makes the Human Race ( supposedly the MOST "Intelligent" One on the Planet ), LOOK Bad. :(

In certain circumstances it may be appropriate.....but it already is banned....!

I remember this discussion in 1971, students writing their term papers on the subject. some things never change.

For some crimes, in my opinion, it is certainly appropriate.

I have never seen or heard of the dead coming back and doing it again so the death penalty works

When it comes time for the sentence to be carried out, the condemned should be placed in solitary confinement for the rest of his or her life, with no human contact of any kind.
The punishment should be greater than life without parole. There are already thousands serving life without parole who never killed, nor hurt anyone. Why should their punishment be the same for someone who has.

I am with it only if you killed someone on purpose and it was not for protection.

We don't have the death penalty in the UK. it was stopped years ago. but given a choice i would bring it back for those heinous crimes that there is absolute proof that the person convicted of the crime is guilty.

I am against the death penalty except for when the State can no longer defend itself against the perpetrator (in line with what the Catholic Church teaches). Susan has given a great answer for reasons to oppose it. I just want to add a few more reasons.
a. There are two people affected by the death penalty - one is the person being put to death and the other is the executioner. This puts an unnecessary burden on the executioner's shoulders, he must now carry these memories with him for life. In my country, we hang. Hangmen are scarce, nobody wants to do this job and some of the few remaining ones drink to forget. Neither do they want their children to follow them in this profession, which tells you what they think of their job.
b. As a Christian, I believe only God has the perfect knowledge to judge the person who is being sentenced to death. Humans are not omniscient and can make mistakes. But death cannot bring reverse a mistake.
c. Many proponents support the death penalty assuming that the State is the legitimate authority with the right to execute criminals and that justice is being served, but this ignores the many countries that do not follow the judicial process. There are countries that turn a blind eye to human rights and execute prisoners because of political reasons. There are countries that allow honor killings and vigilante lynching. There are countries which will stone a person for blasphemy or adultery. Some will require the guilty party's son to be killed as revenge for murdering someone else's son. Some will execute a person who kills even accidently, unless blood money is paid or the victim's family forgives the killer. If one accepts the death penalty, one must then accept that every country has the right to do it as they see fit, whether they hand out the death penalty for blasphemy or for being caught with drugs or for being a political activist.

i am going to vote that the DEATH - PENALTY sentence be carried-out within one year of sentencing. no exceptions.
currently, all people living in jail with a sentence of 'death', must be executed within a max. of 1.3 years.
if you do not know how euthanasia works, ask a veterinarian.

Gee after you are dead no additional crime is possible and of course no paying to keep him in prison.

Think about it this way. If you make the punishment severe enough people will no longer commit the crime, because when they got caught they know their done for.

The Murder Act of 1965 abolished the death penalty.

I think we should bring it back though

For some crimes, yes, the death penalty is appropriate. Those opposed have, for the most part, never suffered as the result of one of these heinous crimes. That it is no deterrent is a false statement, no one knows how many premeditated crimes have been prevented through fear of the death sentence. I do agree, the death sentence should be only for the most horrific of crimes, when there is absolutely no doubt who the perpetrator is, and it should be carried out within 30 days of sentencing.

Here all we have left is bullet to the back of the head or beheading for drug crimes. Seems to work. Low crime here. So band for most crimes. Murder is a crime of understanding. Only for those crimes they do not undersand for death. Solves the problem righ quik.

God Judges Us Beyond Man's Understanding, no

im an extremist, i would cut off the arms and eyes of a murderer and let him walk the streets and tell my kid that's what happens when you kill someone...future generations need to see it so they can learn from others mistakes.

should be used only as a last resort, considering it cost more money then I make in a year, I'd be pushing for prisons and jails to make their tenants do more then make crappy license plates or dog tags. to lower they costs. Why should they get free medical care,cause I don't, or free college classes, cause I don't.

I have never believed in the death penalty. I firmly believe that only
GOD has the right to decide who lives and who dies! Also, people
are not perfect. Mistakes HAVE AND CONTINUE TO BE MADE.
Once a person is dead they are dead. There is no going back on the
decision to kill someone for their crime! I saw a movie on TV years &
years ago. It was based on a true story. A woman had been convicted
of a crime she DID NOT COMMIT, and she was due to be put to
death in the gas chamber. They waited and waited for the governor
to change her death sentence to life in prison. Finally, she was tied
into the gas chamber. They gave the word for the cyanide tablet to
be dropped into the liquid. It didn't take very long and she was dead.
THEN THE PHONE RANG in the death chamber but it was too late.
That was just ONE of many mistakes the USA made in regards to the
death penalty. And the US isn't alone.

An eye for an eye & tooth for a tooth WORKS fine.

What about if you misjudge and kill a innocent?

we are nobody to give penalty like death but who are getting these penalty, are they allowed to do that?

I believe ....

The death penalty is appropriate when guilt is proven beyond *all* doubt, and nothing less.

it may be banned in western democracies but not in developing democracies or dictatorships .. banning is related to development level and sensitivity .. if u ban in some countries it would be uneconomical to maintain prisoners and high expenses

Yes,,,,no.

it should be enforced because it can act as a deterrent.

Only if there were fewer appeals allowed AND the offender was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And even with all THIS, the offender should be executed the same way he killed his victims!

In the case of the fictional character in Jim Bond, Miss Demeaner Craig Rafa...

It isn't used enough.

Imprisoning someone like an animal for 20 years is cruel and inhuman punishment. It would be kinder to execute them.

I believe that the death penalty is appropriate and it should be brought into all states and countries, the death penalty primarily in the instance of the 'life for a life' system, murderers and rapists especially, so yes its appropriate in most cases but not for everything!

Yes very much so

Here in the US it should be streamlined and expanded

Death penalty is appropriate, alive and well. Get it ?