The cannibal, for instance won't ever be a normal individual in society.
I believe that all people can change for the better with rehabilitation and therapy. I don't think anyone has the right to take another mans life, especially not the government.
And I just want to add that I wish that some people were dead.
Which (although this is a hypothetical, for it to be even remotely grounded in reality) he would have to be.
I think it is justified in extreme cases, when there is no doubt that they are guilty. Although "no doubt" has clearly steered us wrong before.
On the topic of comparing it to murder, I kinda think it isn't really the same. I mean, is arresting someone the same as kidnapping them?
Kill 10 people
Prison, rehabilitated failed. Person sets free.
Kill another 10 people.
I'm slightly for Death-sentence. Or at least something that puts this horrible person away from doing any further harm.
Kill 77 people.
Prison, rehabilitation failed. Sentence repeated.
Rehabilitation failed. Sentence repeated.
Of course it's not possible to 100% accurately judge this. They use psychiatrists and such. But it works damn well better then sending murderers into the streets because the jury don't want to prosecute someone if they risk the death sentence, if it means getting blood on their hands.
11) Same as 5
I agree with the point, not those argument for it.
"An eye for an eye makes the world blind."
Exactly, he is not an equal - but he is still human, so he shall be treated as one and given a choice, as is in any human being's rights.
Or the two people taking each others eyes out blind
Also, for many people rotting away in prison is much worse than exectuion
He isn't equal, no. But, for reasons already stated, we musn't de-humanize him, or else we are no better than him. Instead, he is still human - and shall be treated as such. Not as an animal, but as an unequal sentient being.
Can anyone actually prove that execution is more expensive than, like, 20 year prison sentence?
You know, I'd rather be aware that my tax money gets paid to an old man as pension, rather than to upkeep a child rapists cell lifelong just because some people think he deserves care.
Prove me that execution is more expensive, and I'd probably change my opinion.
In terms of logistics, the Death Penalty costs much more than a life-in-prison term (Varies, around 25 years.)
The appeals process and the controversy over it has put up costs to the extreme.
The death penalty should be reserved for violent offenders who show no remorse for their actions, and if there is reasonable belief that they would repeat the crime in the future. The goal shouldn't be to rehabilitate these specific individuals, but to remove a danger from the community. They should probably be shot. A bullet is much cheaper than the drugs used to stop the heart, and the appeals process ramps up costs.
Serial murders are always good candidates for the death penalty. However, one time murderers should still go to prison instead of being killed.
With the current appeal process and extreme costs, I am against the death penalty. If it were reasonably reformed, I might change my stance.
The death sentence is a medieval form of punishment, it's 2011, we don't need to murder people for murdering others, it's rather hypocritical in the first place.
It doesn't work as a deterrent either, those that are going to commit crimes are in positions where they either can't think about it (passion) or they're already aware of the consequences(profit/premeditated). I'm sure there are others but these are the only 2 I could think of off the top of my head.
If he/she goes to prison forever (ie no parole chance) is it not almost the same or even worse as executing him?