Thursday, January 29, 2009

pro-death penalty arguments

The death penalty argument
Pro-capital punishment

By Tim Friday

“You will make a murderer of us all.”

I do not agree because to murder is to unlawfully kill someone. We are executing a criminal which a state decided is the right punishment. Keep in mind that the justice system is not going around tagging human beings and gassing them or shooting them or hanging them like the Nazi and their concentration camps. In fact, there is no evidence to prove that the government is obliterating people, or creating massive human extermination or psychological terror. All that is just a make believe excuse to abolish the death penalty. Nothing is perfect; nothing in this country is all peaceful. There is always violence, always so many deaths.
As for the murderer sentenced to death, automatically we’re a murderer for killing him. I find this to be rather illogical. If executing a murderer for a crime they committed is the same as the murderer murdering innocent victims, then that makes no sense. If we execute a murderer, we are eliminating a threat. The major difference between murdering an innocent person and executing a heinous criminal, is that the murderers likes to cause suffering, we do not. They want to kill more people, we do not. They do not care about innocent people, we do. They don’t want to function in this society, but we do. We care about people, we grieve for the loss of innocent people because of them. To want murderers to go unpunished is to pity them and feel sorry for them for nothing.
The death penalty is a punishment for a criminal who deserves death. This isn’t revenge, hatred, and the people who execute them are not going about saying, “This is fun, we should kill more people.”
When it comes down to punishments, we have to take measure to ensure that criminals get what they deserved. If they were a thief, they should get year in jail. Note that we don’t believe they deserve a death penalty because it is inhumane and ridiculous for a crime so minor. So where is it that we’re obliterating people here? When someone gets a DUI or carjackers stealing a car, they don’t get the death penalty because it just doesn’t make any sense. When we are executing a criminal, we’re executing a person who has done real heinous crime of taking a life, even violating them and prison will not prevent him from killing again.
And lastly, if we kill a murderer, then what does it say when a murderer killed an innocent person? That murderer would then have made you all murderers as well. It sort of conflicts that argument doesn’t it?

“Innocent people get executed on Death Row.”

“The prosecutors withhold evidence, the point is, they all wanted to try to win and they sentenced innocent people to death.” Yes prosecutors do try withholding evidences, but if that is the case, then we all sentenced only innocents to death. We did not. In fact, the innocent people are exonerated from the death row. That is the good thing because we’re paying closer attention to the fact we wrongly put an innocent person on death row. Human makes error, but we shouldn’t abolish the death penalty just because some stupid prosecutors wanted to win the case like it’s a game. A crime is not a game. And I agree that lawyers and prosecutors all want to win the case, and it disgusts me.
The trials should be about fairness and showing evidence for the defendant’s innocence or guilt. To treat this as a game, they should never be prosecutors or lawyers. If all they care about was winning the case, they really shouldn’t be prosecuting anybody. We want to execute truly heinous criminal, not innocent people. And if the abolitionists are worried about innocent people being found guilty when not, then we shouldn’t have courts, laws, or death penalty. We should just allow killers to go on ahead and kill us all.
To claim that we are cool with executing some innocent people is untrue. The fact is, we rely on evidence against the criminals, sometimes some their proofs of innocence were found later after death or when they’re still on death row and it is our mistake. But we shouldn’t abolish the death penalty just because there is a good risk innocent people will die. In fact, there are risks in everything we all do in day to day living. If you’re worried about innocent people dying then let’s remove cars, swimming pools, every inanimate objects that can be harmful to them. Let’s just put innocent people in a padded room with straightjackets and dozen guards. The point is, we can’t all guarantee that not all innocent people won’t be on death row. We’re all humans, the justice system is made of humans, but we all want to live in a good society, we all want to not have people trying to kill us. And in order to do these things, we need to take the risks for the benefit of the society.
For some who are against the death penalty thinks that most criminals are likely to be either innocent or would seek redemption after years in prison. There are criminals who got out of prison and reoffended again. They reoffend like a wolf on a prowl for meat. They act like they can’t get enough or they can’t control themselves or it was their natural instincts. How do I know? Name one person who ever truly seek redemptions for their wrongdoing to the victims and the society. Now granted some minor criminals can redeem themselves, but murderers, pedophiles, and rapists cannot because they don’t want to. They killed because they wanted to. There was no reason to. No way does their action helps build this society into a stronger, healthier, and better place to live in. Nobody wants to be killed, raped, or molested. No one even deserves it. So why do you think that heinous criminals don’t deserve the death penalty?
These are good reasons for taking a risk, and releasing criminals is not one of them.
1) Their actions hurts us all
2) This society has no place for murderers, rapists or pedophiles except prison or death

Now many innocents have been wrongly executed years ago, but this is due to lack of things we have today. In this century, less and less innocents were sent to death row. The thing is, death penalty may carry risks, but so does everything else. In fact, abolitionists seem to want criminals to be just kept in prison. Unfortunately those criminals are released and paroled and they have killed again. So if you’re going to worry about innocent lives, you should worry about not the ones on death row but of those exposed to danger of released and paroled criminals.
Also, if you’re worried about the deaths of innocent people on death row then I wonder how you felt about car wrecks, electricity, weaponry, fire, drowning, disease, natural disasters, and so much that took millions of lives each year. Innocent people are already dying due to everything else. The death row is the least of everyone’s worries. Because this sounds like to me that the abolitionists are more concerned for murderers than innocents. They ignore that everybody is dying or in danger from every dangerous things around us, they just rather we don’t execute their precious murderers. Of all the risks we take in this world, the death penalty is the least concern for us all.
We all want to survive, and we all want to live safely, but in order to do that, we must take the risks and push on forward. As for death row, is different because we should not to take the risk for releasing a dangerous criminal just because an abolitionist doesn’t like death penalty. We want to live, not be killed by someone released from prison. Why take risk of driving? Because we want to go places. Why risk swimming? Because it’s fun to swim. Why risk performing surgery where there is sometimes a good chance it won’t be successful? So we can recover.
I do believe we need to protect those accused until evidence proves them innocent or guilty. Granted, sometimes some of the accused could be indeed innocent. I believe however that just because we cannot find evidence against the accused doesn’t mean they are not guilty. I do not pretend to know everything about the law and the justice system, and on that note I know very little. But don’t misunderstood me, because even when I know little, doesn’t mean I don’t know what I am talking about.
Do I seem like I wanted people to just die because they are accused? I said earlier I don’t want innocent people to die, but I also don’t want the truly heinous criminal to walk free. They should never walk free. If we let them go because some bleeding hearted anti-death penalty abolitionist says, “We can’t kill them, it is wrong and we sink to their levels, don’t kill them in my name, death penalties makes murderers of us all.” Then that convicted heinous criminal goes free on their account and we all just became a true murderer. How? We just sacrificed innocent lives.

“The death penalty is a human rights violation,
Death devices can go wrong.”

Now while it is true that the death devices can botch criminals, strangle criminals instead of just snapping their neck, or feel excruciating pain instead of just peaceful eternal sleep. To let this be a problem is to say, “We need to do this nicely.” We don’t want to do this nicely, we want them to die for the crime they committed. Now note that there are less and less electrocutions, less hangings, and less gassing. The purpose of using lethal injections the most is because it was known to put down animals. Abolitionists claim that it’s not peaceful and that it’s excruciating. I had yet to do research on that yet. But there are other humane ways to execute a murderer like the guillotine for example.
Why is it that we need to feel sorry for murderers and pedophiles? They mercilessly violated human rights, they don’t care that it hurts us, they don’t care about the grieving families or traumatized victims. All they ever truly care about is doing harm to innocent people for their own amusement, profit, passion, or compulsive purposes. None of those are sufficient enough to pity the killer, not in the slightest bit way.
They are criminals and the death penalty is a penalty not an “Oh we’re going to kill you but we’re going to do it nicely.” A criminal who commits heinous crimes sentenced to death should not be treated as sacred cows and we are some Hindus. The important thing is, they committed a crime, and there is no going back, no taking back. They will not change because their crime was intentional though unreasonable and horrible.
Note that this is just a thought experiment; my family is alive and fine. Let’s just say that if my family gets killed by a murderer, why do you think I should pity that killer? Now that my family is dead, there is no going back, and the killer did this for no good reason. My family are an innocent hardworking civilians. We all know they don’t deserve death. The reason why that killer should die is because a) he killed innocent people. B) There is no doubt he’ll kill again because he has killed innocent people who had nothing to do with them. What is going to stop him from killing again? Where does it even end? C) Prison is not a perfect place for heinous criminals because they can escape, get parole, be released, or kill inmates and prison guards. Do I also want that killer to die? Not only do I want him to die, but I want no one to suffer. The point is, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists have no right to live their life because they do not respect the human rights, they do not value innocent people. They kill because they like to, and prison will not stop them.
I’m not indicating we shouldn’t have prisons; don’t assume I am being contradicting here. The point is, they escape, get parole, be released, and kill inmates. So what is left for them but the death penalty?
There is an anti-death penalty group who says we are killing criminals in cruel and inhumane ways. The question is, how? As oppose to saying what they did to innocent people? Some drags their victims into the night, violates them, rapes them, and even murders them. What we do is put them to sleep. Inhumane? Not even close. Cruel? Not even close. Not even close to what they’ve done. We’re not violating them, we did not even did anything other than execute them for the crime they committed.
As for the execution devices, we are using no hangings, no electrocution, no gassing or at least we shouldn’t. Because those are indeed inhumane, but there are humane ways to kill a murderer and lethal injections aren’t just only one of them of course, there is a guillotine because a quick decapitation is instant death. Yes it is bloody but they do not suffer. There are some who says lethal injections doesn’t really put a person to sleep. In fact they said in autopsies, the criminal suffered. There are hundreds of criminals dead by lethal injections and only few autopsies done shows some suffered. I do not have evidence to say it is true or untrue. I do however know that lethal injections are not the only way to kill a murderer humanely.

“It is wrong to kill a human being.”

Then by all means don’t bother defending yourself or those you love. If you believe if it’s ok to kill in self defense or when you’re at war, then what is different about executing those who violated human rights? Let’s say the soldiers out at war are killing the people their leaders tells them, there are massive dead people and no doubt many may be frightened innocent civilian who is forced to kill against their will but we do not know. Now look at the death penalty. War and execution is not the same thing because we’re executing a heinous criminal for their crime, soldiers are killing many people they don’t even know. To say you don’t think we should kill a human being is to imply that we’re to leave ourselves to the mercy of those who violates human rights and kills us.
What is a human being? To me, we’re nothing special. We’re no better than dogs, or cats, or horses, or whatever animal there is. We are animals, and every animal kills each other for survival. The killer instinct exists in all species, including ours. We do have higher intelligence above all animals, but the animal instincts still exists in us. Even when we have developed the sense that killing another is wrong, there are some who doesn’t understand our reason or doesn’t care why we should never kill another person.
Even though we have the laws, there is always going to be consequences to those who break it. We’re all social animals; we all see murders as wrong. To murder is to unlawfully take a life. To defend ourselves is justified because we want to live, not be murdered. We have the law that is supposed to protect us from those who seek to take our life and/or violate us.
Yes we have prisons to hold lawbreakers, but they are not perfect and neither are the trials and justice system. Even when we want to keep lawbreakers from hurting us, we empathically give them rights as they believe to be humane and fair. However, lawbreakers are lawbreakers, not little boys who didn’t realize what they did was wrong. If a murderer took lives, it is because they wanted to. Some seem to enjoy violating their victims, killing them. Why else do we have the death penalty? We get rid of that person, and then we saved many lives.
Why is it that coldblooded murderers won’t stop? Won’t even seek redemption for their crime? Because they took a life and meant it. They wanted to do it, it was no accident, no anger, no reason to take their lives, and they just do it as if victims were just little bugs. It’s as if we’re just bugs to them. They don’t see us as a person, but bugs they gleefully want to squish.
We can understand anger, but that was just beyond anger. We can understand that bosses can be unfair and cruel, wives or husbands are not good husbands or wives, we can understand people not respecting you, not even treating you as an equal, we can understand racism, we can understand the injustice. This is why we have laws, to make things justified. Our founding fathers didn’t lay the constitution as some part of a d├ęcor to the house, they made it so we can get justice we need.
The thing is, to say we shouldn’t kill a heinous criminal for killing innocent lives is to admit you have no pity for the victims, only you pity the murderers. You would feel sorry for pedophiles, rapists, cold blooded killers, and you ignore the victims they violated and/or killed.
Let’s say you have a cage full of bunnies, you love the bunnies, and you would protect and cherish them. There lies a wolf that sees your bunnies as nothing more than a tasty meal. Which one would you kill? If you pity murderers, you just killed the bunnies. If you value a human life, then the life that is to be valued is the innocents, not the murderers. To value murderers, pedophiles, and rapists is to think they should be allowed to kill people freely. If this is not what you view, then you should know victims are more important than murderers and pedophiles.
What is so important about a murderer or a pedophile who killed innocent people that we should spare them? It is important to know that they don’t care about us, they don’t even have a heart when a victim cries, and they don’t care about that the victim. Not ever. They will never care who it hurts and will continue doing so.

“Give them Life without parole, not the death penalty”

There was something that enrages me. Children kidnapped and found dead after being raped, young girls violated and raped and/or murdered, families killed, innocent people killed by psychopaths or serial killers and yet there are people who pities the killers. Why?! Do these abolitionists never realize how disgusting they are? These people killed innocent people and you are showing murderers sympathy and not the victims? Yet, these abolitionists are enraged that we’re prosecuting offenders and executing them for the crime they committed. They obviously don’t care about the victims, only the murderers and pedophiles and the rapists.
All of the anti-death penalty groups do not care for the suffering of innocent people because they look to murderers as if they were the victims and not the ones they’ve murdered and violated. If the anti-death penalty groups are smart, they would understand that we’re protecting the innocent bystanders, and not killing them because it was a thrill or anything like that to us.
In prison the murderers can do many things, escape from prison and reoffend, get wrongly released, accidently released, paroled, appeal, and most definitely, they will kill prison guards and inmates. So why is it exactly do we need murderers to be in prison?
If we are to imprison murderers, pedophiles, rapists rather than execute them, we might as well put them in a underground prison only for them. With more restrictions and less liberty and rights than the criminals of theft or burglary, and so on based on the crime they committed.

“The death penalty does not deter crimes.”

Oh well then let’s remove the prisons, police stations and the government because they too don’t have deterrent factors on criminals as well. What you’re talking about is pure anarchy, and no concern for the life of innocent children, young women, families, police officers, and just about everyone who wants to lead a life with less sufferings and no violent offenders to attack them.
The reason there cannot be a deterrent factor is because of profit, passion, or compulsiveness. Who cares if they did it because there’s money in their spouse’s life insurance or someone promises to pay you to assassinate someone (Profit)? Who cares if someone killed these people because of their mental problem (Passion)? Who cares if they killed them because of their religious belief or lack thereof, racial background, or whatever (Compulsive)? They took a life, no excuse. Death penalty cannot change their ways, neither does prison. So what’s next? Just let them go because there is no deterrence for heinous criminals? Let’s also note that criminals do however have fear for the law (Which is why they sweep their crime under the rug) if we eliminate the murderer, we stop the murders. The murder rates depends on the amount of executions in death penalty. The higher the execution, the murder rate goes down. Why? It is because the murderer is dead.
I can’t see criminals going, “Oh boy they are killing criminals, I want to die from lethal injections or in an electric chair too.” It is nuts and the idea of a criminal doing crime because they want to go to get a death sentence is farfetched. They did it because they want to. Did they feel bad about it?
As for the possibility of making more criminals, it has nothing to do with the death penalty itself, but rather the environment they’re in, the justice system in state’s or country’s jurisdiction, and the learning and influence of all those around them. If they want to commit a crime, then that was their decision, their choice of action, and that is their willingness to inflict harm to others intentionally and mercilessly. Our decision is to arrest them, decide their verdict, and ensure justice is fit for their crime.
Sometimes some can seek redemption and change their ways for the better, but not the hardened criminals. For the criminals worthy of death penalty, they should be extinguished so they can’t hurt another innocent person ever again. Heinous crime a criminal commits cannot deter because they don’t want to stop. Only way it stops is when they’re dead.

“The government is supposed to protect us, not murder us.”

“It is not the act of state killing, it involves psychological terror and torture. An act of human extermination.” This is said by some of the anti-death penalty group. They clearly think it’s ok to have heinous criminals kill innocent people but not ok for us to punish the criminal. Psychological terror? Where did they get that idea? There is no psychological terror; it is just a lethal injection for the criminal who deserves it. We’re not building some death camps. They are clearly calling us all a Nazi and claiming that the death penalty is a death camp thing. This is nuts. Human extermination? Where did they get that idea? We’re not exterminating anyone, we’re only executing the criminal who is worthy of being put to death. To call us a Nazi is disgusting and insulting and extremely untrue! Name one thing that points out that we’re creating psychological terror and human extermination. There are no death camps, the criminals are given fair hearing, not everyone is sentenced to death, just the ones in severe cases, we’re not mindlessly executing people, and we are eliminating a criminal who they themselves are the ones that actually cause psychological terror and human extermination. If you want to talk about the psychological terror and human extermination, take a good look at the concentration camps and at death penalty. See the difference? Death penalty, one criminal removed, concentration camps, millions of innocent people killed because they were different.
“The government is exterminating people, obliterating people.” Again, all wrong and untrue. We’re executing criminals, not innocent people. They are making things up. If we are exterminating people, then the by number of population in the states would be down to few hundreds. But clearly they made that up just so that they can have murderers go free to actually obliterate innocent people themselves.
“A death penalty takes away part of our humanity.” The death penalty doesn’t take anything away except the threat that seeks to do you and me harm. You want to know what takes away part of humanity? Murderers going free and killing us and violating us. We’re protecting innocent people, we’re only eliminating coldblooded killers and pedophiles.
“It is barbaric to kill.” Then don’t bother protecting yourself, don’t bother at all.
“The government is supposed to be protecting society but murdering isn’t one of them.” Just how thick can they get? The government is protecting the society. And they confused execution to murder. Murder is to unlawfully kill. If we eliminate a murderer then we saved a lot of lives. If we don’t, then it is the anti-death penalty groups that killed us all. If we can’t trust the government, then we can’t trust the police or prisons, or anything. The government is just a group of people whom also have human errors. Nothing is perfect. But those are not enough reasons to abolish the death penalty. If the abolitionists think that the government is not protecting society, then why hadn’t we seen less and less neighbors around? Why hadn’t we seen any news about people turning up dead by the government? The fact is the society is being protected and the death penalty is used in executing heinous criminals. To say the government is creating a new concentration camps and obliterating people, executing people is not only a lie but a paranoia without proof of evidence.

“You are descending to their level.”

As I said in earlier, the criminal commits a vile act, we punish the criminal for that crime. How is that lowering to their level? If a kid punches the bully, does that make him lower to his standards? No, it shows the bully he can’t be intimidated anymore. Just as we execute the criminal, he can’t kill anymore.
They say we’re leveling with them. You should know that the murderers, pedophiles, and rapists all committed a crime against innocent people, violating them, mutilating them, raping them, and torturing them, even other unimaginable things to them. And we, we arrest them, put them on trial, see that the death penalty is permissible, then prepare their execution and made it swift. Now where was it exactly did we “lowered ourselves to their level?”
I had watched Penn and Teller’s Episode on the death penalty where Penn has said, “It is not ok to kill a human being.” If only he would open his eyes to reality here, we’re executing them for a crime they committed. He understands this, but what he doesn’t understand was that as human beings goes, there has to be consequences for our actions, and we shouldn’t wavier it just because we’re all human beings. In fact, we shouldn’t kill an innocent human being. We shouldn’t and we don’t take pleasure in killing innocent people, only murderers do.
He and the anti-death penalty groups believes that being human should trump all reason to not kill a human for killing another human. We are not sacred cows, we are not all suppose to just stand up and go, “Oh I can’t kill my attacker because he too is a human.” Being human doesn’t excuse you for being punished for committing crimes. And any crime you commit, there will be punishment, minor or severe.
Life is precious, but not the murderers or pedophiles because they enjoy killing innocents like the children and they will willingly kill us for fun. So if Penn gets a chance to read this, he should understand that no one is excused from the consequences we have just because they happen to be human. The fact is, it’s our actions we choose that makes us for who we are, not that we are of the same species, as Martin Luther King has said, “Judge not by the color of our skin (Or in this case being of the same species) but by the content of our character.” We should judge for what we do, not what we look like on the outside.
Let’s run a little thought experiment here, let’s just say you have a country of your own. Everything you wanted is there. If you oppose the death penalty, then your country has no death penalty. Let’s say you have your murderers, pedophiles and rapists. What are you going to do? If you choose to put them in prison for life, then that may seem like a good idea but it isn’t. They appeal, they get a chance to be released if they fight hard enough and have the right attorney on their side. Or they escape from prison, or possibly they murder the inmates and prison guards. Let’s start with your escaped criminals. You start finding dead bodies around. And as for the released, you find even more dead bodies. What could have been done to make the country safe? Medical treatment? There are no studies that show they make any true recovery from their mental state and their sadistic “urges” to kill. They kill because they wanted to. Your hands are tied with problems, the criminals laid waste to many innocent civilians, millions of taxpayer’s money is wasted to clean up the mess they made. If you choose to put them back in prison, they’ll just escape again, or get appeals. So you kept the criminals locked up, they’ll never stop. But the problem doesn’t end there, the laws change, new people takes the positions, things are changing. They wrongly released them again. It weighs heavily on your shoulders.
Let’s say not only do we not kill heinous criminals, but we give them all the rights and privileges regardless of the actions of their crime all because they too are human beings and it is inhumane to take away their rights. They could get a chance to get freed from prison and reoffend again. Can you truly stop them? No you can’t because you just released a heinous criminal out in the streets. Now that heinous criminal is free to kill and your citizens are now sacrificed. If you think keeping them in prison for life is cheaper and better, you’re wrong. People can forget the crimes a heinous criminal had committed and wrongly released them. So the next time you tell me we’re killing human who committed heinous crimes, you are suggesting that we kill the innocents instead.
Picture this scenery in your head; you’re out in a lot, you and a person in front of you. Third person runs up and kills the person. You back away going, “Oh he killed an innocent person, but we shouldn’t kill him, because I would be no better than him.” Then he kills the next person, and the next person all because you “Don’t want to sink to their level.” Now is this the kind of scenery you want? Because that is precisely what you’re implying.
Now you might go, “No, no, no, I mean we just put them in prison.”
Ok, back to the scenery, you get that person arrested. He gets 25 years for murder, then a parole, he wanders around the street. Sneaking behind the parole officer’s back, he kills again. Guess what? You just murdered innocent people all because you don’t want to “Sink to their levels.” Stop acting so high and mighty. And besides, we’re not trying to be self righteous here, which we shouldn’t, we’re trying to stop the criminals.

“Criminals are people too with families and friends,
They had suffered,
What about the criminal with mental condition?”

Are we supposed to just let them go because they have a life? “So you took a life of a child but that’s ok with me, you go have a life you didn’t deserve.” Just because they have a life doesn’t excuse for what they did. You rob an innocent life for profit, for compulsiveness, or for passion, you forfeited yours.
Yes even the criminals have suffered which proves that everything is not all black and white. But just because you suffered, doesn’t grant you a permission to harm another innocent person, regardless of their past or mental condition. Everyone suffers; everyone has bad things happen to them in the past. Should that be really an issue to whether or not we execute a heinous criminal? They suffered, we suffered, but they make us suffer even more by hurting us or those we love, and/or taking a life.
If a person with mental condition is killing innocent people and doesn’t know what they are doing, shouldn’t be any different than the person who knows what they are doing. They still committed a heinous crime all the same. We cannot waive the punishment just because the person with mental problems doesn’t realize what they have done. They are still a danger to this society. To pity them because of their mental state is to ignore the fact that they had killed an innocent person.
Let me also clarify something here, I’m not saying all with mental conditions are bad, just the ones that committed a serious felony. If I ask what the person with mental disorder does and they say, “Oh he talks to imaginary friends and urinates in public.” Ok, keep him in the hospital. If the person has mental problem and he kidnaps children and mutilates them or rapes them, then point out one good reason he or she shouldn’t be punished.

“It is not constitutional. It’s cruel and inhumane”

Wrong, it is constitutional as it stated in the constitution, though indirectly. As for the cruelty, it is not. What is cruel was a murderer who kills innocent people. There is nothing unusual because everything is common because people killed everyday in self defense, execution, in war, or in coldblooded murder.
There is some who said that the lethal injections are used by Nazis. Now the thing is, we’re not doing this like a Nazi; we’re not killing out of hate. We used lethal injections because we believe it is painless and quick clean death.
Believe this as I tell you, Nazis also breathes air, eats food, sleeps in houses, also converses with others and has families. Should we get rid of that too? They made cars so let’s get rid of cars, they also made hospitals so let’s get rid of that too. We shouldn’t have to get rid of everything just because it was used by others that had done heinous things.
To support the death penalty, you care about innocent people because you believe there is no reason for murderers to go unpunished and the victims to be left ignored. To oppose the death penalty, you turn a blind eye against the victims and look compassionately to the murderers. I believe life is precious and to take such a life forfeits you the right to have a life. That is justification for the victims.
The person who violates human rights is nothing more than an enemy to us all. It is just to eliminate that violate offender otherwise he or she will kill more. It is us civilians or them that should be gone, we chose the heinous criminals, and abolitionists choose us.
To abolish the death penalty, you have given the power to criminals to have advantage over their victims. You leave the nation unguarded. This is weak and blind. Not to mention a violation to a human right, a person should have protection under law against criminal activities.
Overall, We’re not all murderers because to murder is to unlawfully kill, death penalty is a lawful act. The deterrence in the death penalty is plausible because criminals fear death and the abolitionist confuses the cause and effect on the crime rates and the death penalty. The higher crime rates are not because of the death penalty but because of bad influences in the environment and that sort of thing, criminals are everywhere. The death penalty has nothing to do with the rates of crime in the states or countries, but is a solution to the elimination of heinous criminals because you cannot kill if you’re already dead. There are now less and less innocents on death row. If we did take a life of an innocent, it is human error of ours. To abolish the death penalty because of the risks is to abolish hospitals, prisons, courts, cars, guns, drugs, everything.

“What about the morality?”

It is important to understand that morality isn’t set in stone, it comes from what we believe to be moral or isn’t. Morality is complicated, not simple. We can say, we shouldn’t kill an innocent human being, which we can agree with. To say we shouldn’t kill a human being implies we shouldn’t go to war, we shouldn’t protect ourselves or others. But that is not the worst part, the fact is, we have our murderers, pedophiles, and rapists violating human rights and murdering innocent people. We can all agree their actions are immoral without doubt. To say we shouldn’t execute them humanely because they look like us isn’t the principle of morality, but a confused concept of what makes us for who we are. Our feelings, goals, beliefs, our actions, dreams, our dislikes and likes makes us for what we are, not for being of the same species.
If it is immoral to remove the life of a murderer, then should it mean it’s immoral to imprison criminals because we took away their liberty? Choices that we all make, bad ones and good ones, there is always a cause and effect for the choices we make. There are always consequences for our actions and sometimes we must strip their rights to liberty for breaking laws, strip the right to live for taking a life, there is always consequences.
Everybody has different ideas to what is moral because of experience in their life, things they were taught, and the religious belief they were brought up.
Let’s do another thought experiment, let’s say you have a teenage daughter. A serial rapist breaks in through her bedroom window, he rapes and tortures and kills her. Was there any reason he did that? Does this look like a cause where a fox slaughters the hen house? We know this was wrong, so did the serial rapist. But the serial rapist did it anyway. Is there any reason to keep him alive at all? What would be the well deserving consequences for people like him? Death is the proper consequence for his crime. Everything is has consequences. To say it is immoral to kill this serial rapist is to think his murder for the young girl is not important. To say he shouldn’t die for his crime because of moral integrity conflicts with the importance of his murder of an innocent victim, especially for no apparent reason. He did this because he likes to. He thinks this is a game to him, he thinks he can do as he like to anybody he rapes and murder. To tell me that I can’t have him executed implies his crime isn’t worth the death penalty because of your pity for the rapist.

“Religious view on the death penalty.”

First off, religion shouldn’t have a part in the whole death penalty debate; second, the morality of Christianity is skewered by the contradictions and poor judgments on what is moral.
To say that anything the God says is wrong, we should take God’s word for it. It is ridiculous because the God’s word of morality is thou shall not kill and you should put to death of Homosexuals, witches, atheists, adulterers, disobedient children, so on and so forth. Like I said, the idea of Christian’s view of morality is vague and crude, not to mention insane and ludicrous.
If Christians wants to argue that Jesus has done away the old testaments and said we should not kill, it is important to know he did no such thing. This is because he clearly stated that he did not come to abolish the Old Testament, but to fulfill it and he did by making the already ludicrous Old Testament laws even more severe.
I’m an atheist and I do not believe that the doctrine of Christianity makes good compelling argument against or for the death penalty at all.

My list of reasons to support the death penalty

The expenses on the death penalty, life sentence and so on are all to a court, trials, the appeals, and the jury, so to say the death penalty is more expensive is not really true, the courts itself is expensive. The point is, the sentences itself are rather inexpensive.

The cruel and inhumane killings are done by murderers, not by lawful execution. We’re eliminating those who would seek to do harm.

Criminals are not some holy cows and we are not some Hindus following the doctrine of Hinduism.

Being a human being is not an exception to execution just because they happen to look like a human, but because of the crime they committed. It’s all about the content of our character, our feelings, dreams, beliefs, opinions, likes and dislikes makes us for who we are no matter the appearance.

To say that the government is exterminating people, obliterating people, producing psychological terror, making mass human extermination is all heavily and extremely false. This sort of argument fails because there are no evidence to prove that the government has done so much as created death camps.

The idea that murderers who kills for profit, passion, or compulsive reasons is not good reason to execute just because of deterrence, then putting them in prison would be bad idea because they too don’t have any deterrent factors. Executing murderers for deterrent reason may not stop others from committing the similar heinous crime, but it stops that specific murderer from killing again. To say that heinous criminals doesn’t care and will kill anyway is precisely why they should be executed.

To say the moral principle is to not murder people is correct, but execution is not an unlawful act, but a punishment by law.

To say we should just keep murderers and pedophiles in prison for life because it is more humane than killing, we just already killed innocent people. They can appeal, escape from prison, be released by the government, by wrongly released, or accidently released, they may even kill inmates and prison guards.

To want to abolish the death penalty because the devices are inhumane is understandable though I don’t care about the heinous criminals in the slightest bit way, there is however better ways to execute a heinous criminal “humanely” such as the guillotine or electromagnetic pulse or the lethal injections. This is so we can go, “Oh we’re going to execute you, but we’re going to do it kindly.” We’re not putting down a dying dog; we’re putting down heinous criminals.

To abolish the death penalty because we have innocent people on death row is to abolish prisons and courts because innocents too can be convicted wrongly and put in prison. We should also abolish police stations because the police officers too apprehend innocent people they thought were suspects by mistakes or possibly out of hate.

To say it is cruel and inhumane to execute murderers is to blindly ignore the murderer’s previous victims and portray murderers as if they are victims instead. Showing compassion for murderers means you do not care about the innocents, just the murderers. Lastly, the heinous criminals do not care about who they hurt, they enjoyed it, and are willing to hurt people.

Statistically, the studies show that the numbers of executions of murderers reduced the murder rates. I know this is true because a dead murderer cannot kill again. The reason of higher crime rates in the states is not because of the death penalty, but vice versa. What makes criminals a criminal? Bad influence, being raised by bad parents, the environment they’re in. Criminals don’t go, “I want to kill so I can die on lethal injections.”

The purpose of executing heinous criminals is to save innocent lives, to protect the society. The lifetime in prison isn’t the better alternative as I just stated earlier.

To say that the death penalty is a violation to human rights is incorrect because the death penalty executes the human rights violators. Also to think that the death penalty takes away part of humanity is also incorrect because that implies we’re just killing people for fun.

To say executing a murderer makes us all murderers, then what does that say about murderers who kills the innocent people? Wouldn’t that imply they made you all into murderers? How about the soldiers in Iraq? Or the woman who defended herself against her attacker? Or the police officer for defending the school bus full of children from a crazed psychopath taking them hostages?

To say we are sinking to their level is farfetched because a murderer murders innocent victims because they like to, they enjoyed it. We’re executing them so they can’t kill anymore. Where exactly did we lower ourselves to their level?

To abolish the death penalty because you don’t want to risk innocent people on death row would mean we have to eliminate prisons, courthouses, police stations, hospitals, cars, airplanes, weapons, and anything else that can hurt us simply because you don’t want to take risks.

To say that the lethal injections are used by the Nazi doesn’t mean we are doing this as a Nazi. In fact, if we had to not use it because Nazis used it, then we might just have to get rid of cars they made, hospitals they built, because a lot of things we have is made by the Germans. Also Nazis eats, breathes and sleeps. Should we not do that then? Maybe the police officers and the good law abiding citizens shouldn’t have guns because criminals have guns too.