Should The Death Penalty be applied? ,and if yes where applied, and no why not?

Yes, the death penalty should be an option.


It should be applied, wherever it'll piss off the most libtards.

It makes a lot of sense in any situation where the crime was horrific or there is little chance of rehab.

If you go back about one hundred and fifty years to the beginning of civilization, capital punishment was the standard for murder, rape, etc.

The prime intention of any legal penalty is to set an example in the social system.

Setting an example is very much important for maintenance of law & order.

Under the name of humanity when penalties to the cruel criminals are diminished,wrong examples are set...it's just like encouraging the criminals & discouraging the common man.

Everyone loses faith in law & order & in the whole justice system.

General public tend to avoid raising voice against injustice happening to them or witnessed by them when they know that criminals will not get enough punishment & they would trouble them after finishing their nominal punishment....criminals don't hesitate to warn people & even to concern public officers that they would be taking revenge after escaping from jail.

In order to avoid injustice,already the justice systems are so complex that it takes many years to prove the crime,after so much of delay when the criminals are excused & made free to wander in society people are bound to get terrified & criminals are bound to rule society's fear.

To leave a cruel killer free to wander in society under the name of humanity is most INHUMAN act as such criminals are bound to kill many other innocent as they get the confidence that nothing happens.

It's INHUMAN even if they aren't left free & jailed for whole life as other criminals & general public too tend to calculate & conclude that CRIMINALS PUNISHMENT WOULD BE MAXIMUM JAIL FOR LIFE & VICTIM'S PUNISHMENT FOR SURE WOULD BE A DEATH PENALTY!!!

Victim's CERTAIN & IN ADVANCE death penalty MAY result in SOME penalty to the criminal.....This scenario is encouraging crimes to rise by leaps & bound.

This must stop now.

Death penalty must be applicable to Murders of most type & Terror attacks.

Acid attacks should be penalized by applying acids to the same parts of the criminal as that of victim.

Rapist's gentile & both hands must be chopped.

It's a debatable question.

There's a bit of me that say's no, but then there's a part of me that thinks about my children, if anyone was to hurt them I would want that person dead.

So I'll say yes, as long as it's beyond any doubt who the guilty party is.

I agree with this answer but would never be able to be the one who actually does the execution.

Should The Death Penalty be applied? ,and if yes where applied, and no why not?

Humm...what do you think OP ? On this or virtually any topic of yours or anyone else's ?

* shugs* reminds me of election surveys.

Just as been said that 'All are equal but few are MORE EQUAL'...!!

I hate the mentality of being kind as long as me & my people are not affected...it is nothing but purely selfishness.

Yeah...selfishness !! because by being kind to criminals who committed crime against others I'm creating my image as a kind & generous person in society.

If any one really likes to be kind then he/she should dare to excuse those criminals who killed themselves or their own beloved one's. Like mahatma gandhi did!!

If government is extremely small in its scope and power and extremely representative of the population it governs, then yes.

If government is extremely large in its scope and power, and not all that representative of the population it governs, then no, it's just a weapon that can easily be misused.

I've gone back and forth on this over the years. I'm still not entirely firm about it, in a general sense.

On one side, I know that some innocent people are dead because of it. That's on the "no" side.

It's also true that we only started to get really good at catching serial killers, when we stopped killing them long enough to study them, and use them to get the new ones. That mitigates against it too.

On the other side, is that some people who have to guard prisoners complain that without the death penalty, there's no incentive for life-without-parole criminals to cooperate.

The biggest thing I have against it overall, is that too much of existing American justice, is still influenced by emotion. Every time I hear that a child is being tried as an adult because the CRIME was extra nasty, it bothers me, because that sounds to me as though "blind justice" only applies to people who we AREN'T really really mad at.

And what gets declared to be a Capital crime gets changed for political reasons too.

It's too much of a political football all in all.

Back in the Biblical days, if a person was to receive the death penalty, they had to be found guilty and deserving death by 12 judges and the accusers had to carry out the sentence by dropping a large rock on the guilty party.

I'm okay with something like that.

I believe there were 12 judges for each of the twelve tribes of Israel, but I'm not certain they all jointly would sit on judgement of one case like a jury.

After the accused was found guilty then the accuser/accusers had the right to throw the first stone.

I'm sorry, friend, you are wrong. The rules for the death penalty are recorded in the Talmud. 12 judges had to find the accused guilty and they were killed by dropping a large rock off a cliff or structure onto the guilty person. The rock was picked to be large enough to kill the person in one hit.

EDIT: You're right, it's not 12. It's 23.

Ill 2nd that!!!!!

I'd really like a scriptural quote if it isn't too much trouble.

I believe the death penalty should always be there as an option and as a deterrent.I believe the penalty will mean some innocent people will die because of errors of judgment.On the other hand not having a death penalty has resulted in many innocent deaths and failure to apply the death penalty has resulted in many more innocent deaths than the numbers who have been wrongly executed.I don't have statistics for the numbers men.It is my perception.

Hi Prashan,
I didn't quite get that. Did MG pardon criminals? Are you referring to the Hindu-Muslim clashes in the past that led to the birth of Pakistan?

Thank You... This isn't a scriptural quote, but it is some kind of secular prerequisites called the Tractate Sanhedrin.

I really don't know what this document is about or if it's actually something from Babylon.

It appears to have been something current to that era.

It is from the Talmud, which is scriptural for Jewish people.