46 1

Hi all.... wondering what your perspective is regarding the death penalty. Do you think a murderer who has confessed to killing should immediately be put to death or do you think they can be rehabilitated? I don't mean to offend anyone. Just curious.

qspawnq 4 Apr 11

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.



To kill someone for killing is hypocritical.

To place a confessed killer on an operating table and dissect all usable organs, bones and tissue in the most comfortable manner possible, minimizes the hypocritical nature of the death penalty.

It is no longer an eye for an eye. It is you commit murder, now you save many as you are executed.

I think this solution sounds good. However, knowing our judges, I'm afraid that many innocent people will be convicted just to harvest the organs.


I’m against it.

1 - It’s irreversible. You can’t unexecute the innocent.

2 - Life in prison is a worse punishment than death.


I firmly believe that NO-ONE has the right to take life from any other person and since there have been, in the past, innumerable cases of Wrongful Executions then LIFE imprisonment for a capital crime SHOULD LIFE without ANY hope of early release or parole.
The same, in my opinion, should go for Paedophiles, Rapists and habitual Thieves, etc, as well.

Were Hitler and Stalin deserving, to name just two? If your answer is 'no,' then there's nothing to discuss.

@Storm1752 The entire Leadership ( Field Marshalls, Generals, etc, etc,) of the Nazi party, Stalin, Pol Pot, EVERY Pope and Catholic Priest, Cardinal/Bishop, etc, who either stayed silent or condoned the slaughter, rape and pillaging of native peoples throughout the centuries or was involved in the abuse of children or adults in the name of Religion throughout the centuries, any Ruler, King or Queen who sanctioned the same, ergo EVERYONE who has ever or will ever kill or cause pain and suffering to a victim/s with deliberate and or malicious forethought deserves imprisonment for the Term of His/her Natural Life in my opinion.


My reasons for opposing the death penalty are not related to rehabilitation at all, altho I do think it is admirable when a murderer does change, turn their life around, and devote themselves to helping others in prison as a way of making up for what they did. But my reasons, if it's not off-topic, are that it doesn't bring back the dead, it doesn't make anyone even with the murderer, it is not applied fairly in respect to class and race, it is also clear that innocent people have been executed wrongly and then exonerated after their execution, and lastly, as a good socialist, the death penalty has frequently been misused and abused by dictators and authoritarian governments to kill their political opponents, usually socialists or communists.

Brilliant post

@Amisja Thank you, I get lucky once in a while. I stole part of my argument from the lyrics of Elvis Costello's song Let Him Dangle, a song against the death penalty.


I am not offended...I do not believe the death penalty solves the hurt and pain for victims or their families and friends. But I do believe in humane incarceration, for life. Some atrocities would require that.


Killing is wrong, even for the state.


Not a fan of the death penalty...Due process needs to play out every time. We cannot make mistakes.


I'm a Canadian so like the rest of the civilized western nations we got rid of that barbaric practice a long time ago. End of discussion.


Me personally, I think the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate someone so that they can become a productive member of society.
For someone who commits murder, either by accident, a crime of passion, personal gain, they were on drugs at the time and weren't in complete control of their faculties, etc, etc. The death penalty holds no place. Another murder doesn't correct a life lost, it doesn't cancel it out, and it helps no one. -It's just revenge-murder wish fulfillment.

For those who delight in killing, i.e. sociopaths who lack empathy, the death penalty makes more sense.
Certainly you could allow them to live out their lives in prison, but they might kill other prisoners.
There are some who cannot be rehabilitated and cannot be in society without murdering other human beings. Until their brains can be rewired and corrected to incorporate empathy they shouldn't be admitted to live in any place where they could potentially take another life.


Not in favour for lots of reasons. There are too many mistakes in backgrounds in judging, and in sentencing. People who are judged to be violent or dangerous to others should be kept separated but all other people who commit offences should be rehabilitated. And what about a woman who kills an abusive husband? Should she be immediately put to death under your system?

should we just take the word of the woman that her husband was abusive?

@callmedubious should we just take the word of any victim that a crime has been committed? Evidence is part of the nature of any crime.


America hasn't been worried about reform in decades. It's vengeance over justice. Caging humans and for-profit jails/prisons are acceptable. (Look at other countries, where reform is a priority, and reform, even of convicted/admitted murderers does indeed work.)

Until DNA in America is timely and verified in all death penalty cases, no executions should take place. One innocent put to death is one too many.


I don't know if certain people can be rehabilitated but no one should be put to death. Keep them locked up but under humane conditions as the Scandinavians do. Currently imprisonment in the US amounts to torture.


Individual cases vary as far as rehabilitation but I don't believe in killing for killings sake.


Depends entirely on the nature of the killer. If the murder is a one-time crime of passion or revenge then rehab is justified, if it's the work of a sexual sadist, thrill killer or any other form of psychopathy, then execution or lifetime confinement is the only justifiable recourse because psychopaths can't be rehabilitated.


No government should be in the business of killing people, much less it's own citizens.


Random psychopath or cheating lover? Laying in wait in the dark or crime of passion? Blanket "killing" isn't going to cut it for discussion......


why are those the two choices? presenting those two choices implies that if someone cannot be deemed rehabilitatable that person should be immediately put to death. is that why we kill people? because they cannot be rehabilitated? and how are we supposed to judge ALL confessed murderers the same way? maybe some can be redeemed and others cannot. is the confession what makes the difference? people DO make false confessions sometimes. i am against the death penalty altogether and it certainly has nothing to do with confessions or rehabilitation. it has to do with us, the ones who did not murder. i do not see why getting together in a group makes it okay for us to kill someone when otherwise it would not be okay. oh, s/he deserves it. well, the murderer obviously thought so about the victim, too! oh, s/he can't be rehabilitated. well, how wonderful that we can figure that out at a glance and apply that to every single murderer. you know, in my heart i wanted manson dead. my dad joined the army because he wanted to go personally strangle hitler. those are not unnatural feelings, but murderers have them too -- about people we don't think they should kill. we're not different from murderers because we choose worse people to want to kill. we're different because we control our impulses and don't DO it. so how it is justifiable for us to get together as a group and decide to give in to those impulses?



It has proven too unreliable to be forced on anyone. I do think however as a purely economic option that I would support anyone with a life sentence getting to chose it. Basically, I support the right to life, which is a door that swings both ways, and also means we should have some right to death.

It costs more to give someone the death penalty than life in prison. They have pointed this out for decades. Pay attention.


It’s all a death sentence.


@chazwin Extremely, what’s your point?


In EUA there is dead penalty, yet you have a huge rate of crime. There is no point in taking peoples's cruel. You can not say it's wrong to take someone's life and do the same.

But then you have a problem with prisoners killing other prisoners and guards. How do you protect other persons from murderous prisoners? In the U.S., solitary confinement has a lot of critics as being inhumane and their is a move to abolish how do you keep prisoners and guards safe if you cannot execute? Seems like quite a conundrum.

@dahermit well in USA people are so religious,( so don't take what god gave 😛 ) and you live in pure capitalism so jails are a way of creating business and jobs.


I’m against the death penalty. There is no such thing in Europe. You can not say killing is wrong and do the same. I am totally against.

See and respond to my post above please.


I'm against the death penalty under all circumstances.


I think that rehabilitation is the necessary choice.


Even without commenting on the death penalty; confessions are not reliable in proving guilt.

JimG Level 8 Apr 11, 2019

Absolutely opposed. No one is beyond redemption.


I don't think the state should have the right to execute its citizens. It's barbaric.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:329098
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.