The death penalty is justified if and when it is the only way to prevent a far greater harm (the death of others is a good example). However, in the criminal system, I cannot think of a case where this would be true.

I believe so. It has two benefits: it kills someone who would otherwise be let loose in society a few years down the road and also it stops taxpayers from having to take care of his needs in jail.

the death penalty should not exist! murder is murder

i dont think that they use the death penalty enough. if someone murders someone else and they receive the death penalty they should die not sit in jail untill they die. it should happen shortly after they get convectied like no more than a month later.

You have two questions here. Killing is wrong, and I will always live with having to kill in combat, but it was me or them. Death Penalty killing, in my opinion should be allowed in absolute extreme situations where someone admits to and is obviously guilty of horrid crimes of murder. There is a difference between killing and murder.

I really, really have mixed feelings about this. Part of me says it's justified but another part of me says that under no circumstances can we judge that another human's life is not worth living, it lowers us to their level. Sorry to give such a wishy washy answer, but I don't really know.

It's always wrong and it's not a deterrant because nobody that murders expects to get caught.

In my opinion killing is ALWAYS wrong.

I don't think I can accurately present my views on this subject- I just got done watching a whole season of Dexter.

no... punishment is naturally administered at the time of a crime as a feeling called guilt, compounded by getting yelled at by whoever you offended! thats it! no need for violence or locking anybody up

Considering our dysfunctional justice system, I don't think we can ever be absolutely sure that we aren't putting an innocent person to death. It HAS happened in the past, and it will continue to happen for as long as we allow our government to kill people. Prisoners continue to be exonerated after the fact due to new evidence, DNA analysis, and who knows what other technology will come up in the future. You can set a prisoner free, but you can't resurrect a dead man once you've killed him. Can you live with the possibility of condoning the execution of an innocent human being? I can't. Besides the ultimate injustice of the innocent man put to death, there are other injustices. There are major disparities in which criminals are sentenced to prison and which are sent to Death Row. Black men are much more likely to be sentenced to death than white men who commit the very same crime, for example. Many current methods of execution have a certain likelihood of malfunction amounting to pure torture (extended excruciating pain, prisoners left not dead but in a vegetative state, prisoners lit on fire in the electric chair, etc). Many places, such as the United States, still allow the execution of minors and of the mentally ill. When you combine all of these factors, it's rather sickening how haphazardly the Death Penalty is applied. Besides that, while I do find it mighty tempting in certain beyond-the-pale cases, I don't see that it serves any purpose to execute prisoners, even if we can be sure that they're guilty and that the sentence is carried out fairly. The death penalty has not shown any documented deterrent effect to other criminals. It is FAR more expensive to execute than it is to imprison for life for many practical reasons (you have to house them seperately in special facilities, there are much more extensive legal appeals involved, etc). And there's no reason why life without parole in a maximum-security facility isn't an equivalent punishment, with the same result for the public's safety. There is basically no rational argument for its use, only an emotional motive for revenge. That might be reason enough for some, I guess..

To be honest, I believe that right now the death penalty is useless--not wrong, but useless. Nobody cares if they get the death penalty because they'll still be around for another thirty or forty years. I believe that if they have you dead to rights, actual proof you did the crime, and you get the death penalty... I say fuck'em, take'm out back and shoot them. But only if they have proof. If the evidence is circumstantial, a.k.a. no one is quite sure, and they're given the death penalty, then yes, they need the whole 30 years of appeals and stuff in case they were wrong and the person is innocent. But yeah, if they have proof the person did the crime and get the death penalty... kill'em. Sorry if I sound heartless, but its what I believe.

Generally, those who advocate the death penalty are conservative politically and most times claim to adhere to the principles of Judeo-Christian morality. If there is a commandment that states "Thou Shall Not Kill" then there is a conundrum in the following: "You are a killer and that is wrong, therefore I will kill you."

There is never a legitimate,or moral reason for killing another,even if it is legal as in the death penalty.It is just a way of murder,and depending on the state,it is legal.Very few western countries have the death penalty for it is ,and should be a thing of the terrible past.