The death penalty?

[yes]

How do you feel on this sore subject?

[Neptual]

A human life is still a life no matter how bad the crime. We shouldn't decide when there lives should end. In addition we should also study them and figure out why they did those horrible crimes

[TheVeganAtheist]

im siding on the no side of the death penalty. In states with the death penalty you don't see a reduction in crime, so it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. The only reason it would seem to make sense is an economic one: it may be cheaper to put someone to death then lock them up for life.
Also, death seems too easy. If someone did something really bad, i think they should either be helped and suffer some kind of living consequence.

[yes]

A human life is still a life no matter how bad the crime. We shouldn't decide when there lives should end. In addition we should also study them and figure out why they did those horrible crimes

if someone is willing to take another's life without valid reason (self defense, or something else of that manner), why do they deserve there own life. It was there decision to take another's life, not ours. I agree with your last statement.

[brimstoneSalad]

im siding on the no side of the death penalty. In states with the death penalty you don't see a reduction in crime, so it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. The only reason it would seem to make sense is an economic one: it may be cheaper to put someone to death then lock them up for life.
Also, death seems too easy. If someone did something really bad, i think they should either be helped and suffer some kind of living consequence.

I put don't care- not because I don't care, but because I can't say yes or no definitively.

In the U.S., we have pretty definitive evidence that not only does the death penalty not deter criminal activity (and may make it worse- if you're going to be killed for raping, why not kill the victim too to make sure you don't get caught?), but it's more expensive than incarceration for the state.

But there are other contexts in which it might make sense.

For one, bottom line: The death penalty must be cheaper than life in prison and/or rehabilitation, or be proven to act as a deterrent- if neither of those are the case, it's a non starter.

It's unlikely that the death penalty will ever be a serious deterrent- criminals don't go into criminal activity thinking they're going to get caught, that's the problem.
People aren't saying "Hmm... since it's only life in prison, I think I'll kill this guy; that's totally worth it." No. If they thought they'd get caught, they generally wouldn't do it. Most murders are also crimes of passion- where reason isn't exactly in the front seat.

So, as to the rest...
I don't think it's so much the nature of the crime that matters, as the degree of certainty that we have that the person committed the crime.
And that's the only way you're going to be able to make it cheaper without sacrificing civil rights to do it.

E.g. if somebody is on film doing something, with dozens of reliable witnesses, etc. and we're absolutely sure they did it- I think we could consider some provisions: e.g. the "express lane" they were considering in Texas some time ago to make it more affordable.

If it's proven to be cheaper, then I think it's a question of how many lives you can save with the money you save, compared to the life of the criminal (being kept behind bars for life). I will chose an 'innocent' life over a 'guilty' one.

Unless we make some incredible advancements in neural imaging to the point we have something like a reliable lie detector that can actually tell innocent from guilty without false guilty results, I don't think that's ever going to be a thing outside of the unusual case of mass witnesses and video capturing the crime perfectly. Rarely are crimes recorded that well.

[Volenta]

I'm certainly against it. Punishment should only be used when it reduces the crimes being committed, and like some already said, death penalty doesn't seem to help. Economic reasons (pretty much the only good reason for death penalty) are always worth less than moral reasons for me, otherwise society would be a nasty place to live in. Social justice/satisfaction also seems a wrong reason to do it (which I explained pretty much here).

Never heard any compelling reason. I think it's a matter of time before it's a practice of the past.

if someone is willing to take another's life without valid reason (self defense, or something else of that manner), why do they deserve there own life. It was there decision to take another's life, not ours. I agree with your last statement.

Sounds like the eye for an eye principle, which I'm absolutely against. It feels weird to me to lower yourself to their level by punishing them in the same wicked way that you're actually opposed to. Never understood this.

[klonoa]

I think it's kinda human nature to want to destroy your enemy's.
However, killing someone because they killed someone seems illogical to me.
I like to think we're more civilized then that.
Yes it's more economical to kill them but to that i say: Let them do shitty jobs no one else wants to do.

I seen a man sentenced to death once because he dragged a man behind his car till he died.
When he left the court room the family yelled at him: Goodbye! Goodbye!
To me that's just as bad as what he did.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes it's more economical to kill them but to that i say: Let them do shitty jobs no one else wants to do.

In the U.S.A, it actually costs more to kill somebody than to put them in prison
It's crazy.

[Viktorius_the_Third]

to give my personal opinion to this:
there should be no forced death penalty! every human has its right to live! and TERRORISM? seriously? terrorism isnt even a crime in my eyes but more a necessary way of revolting! (i do not mean murder! which is often confused with terrorism! if you blow someone up its murder not terrorism! terrorism is simply to revolt against the government! would you say "V" from "V for Vendetta" was a bad guy? NO! because his government was corrupted and brutal! much like us government and many others are right now! i do think that bush has killed WAY more men than osama bin laden (who was working for the us by the way ) and he did not get executed...) but back to my point:
terrorism is of cause a crime but never to be sentenced with death!
BUT i do think that people who got the life long enprisonment should be able to choose whether they want to die or live the rest of their lives in misery!

[brimstoneSalad]

Terrorism is criminal because it is a violation of the rules of social contract.

Look at the game theory of the matter: If you can't get what you are after by rational discourse, propaganda, and just pitting the ideas against each other in the marketplace of ideas, then you go on to more extreme actions of terrifying others.
If everybody behaved like this, we would live in a state of perpetual fear and harassment.

The "pro-life" lobby would be terrorizing everybody who got or went for abortions (not just protesting them)- and they already do this a little, it's only thanks to the social and legal condemnation of terrorism that they don't do it more.
Feminists would be terrorizing them, and industries that pay women less, etc.
Animal rights activists would be terrorizing animal industry workers.
Communists would be terrorizing capitalists.
Etc. etc.

No matter how you live or what you do, you're offending somebody's ideology.

As long as we all play by the rules, and have rational discussions, that's OK.
But when people resort to terrorism, the playing field quickly degrades into chaos- and then nobody can succeed (or even live) without constant terror.

It's wrong to do it, even if you're doing it for the right reasons, because it's an overt violation of social conduct. Scaring people does have victims, and nobody should be intimidated- it's a cornerstone of protecting free speech, particularly minorities (like vegans and atheists).

That's not "economic terrorism", which is more of a joke (when there are no people involved, like mere vandalism)- that's not really terrorism (a company can not be terrified for its assets or life, since it is not alive).
Still illegal, yes, and it needs to be... but sentencing people under terrorism laws for that is wrong.

As you said, though, it may not be helpful to sentence terrorists to death in any case.