When or even if do you agree with someone being killed for their crimes?

Things to take into account please,

Proof
Circumstances


Does your country still have the death penalty?

Yes, if the crime is fatal enough, and they got solid proof, and it affected a lot of people, the person deserves death penalty.


Right now I'm thinking of the person behind the Norway Massacres of July 22nd 2011. They've got solid proof that he killed 50+ politically interested teenagers for absolutely no reason. He planned this for about 9 years, and he should die by death penalty. Whichever method is the one that will make him suffer for the longest possible amount of time. True they're thinking of putting him into absolute isolation for the rest of his life, and tbh that might be enough to break him down.

Norway do not, as I know off right now, have death penalty's, but under certain circumstances, where this one was an attack on the country itself, they should make an exception.

I don't believe the death penalty is fair.

There have been many wrongly accused people who have been executed and it's not right.

The death penalty by Hanging was abolished in 1964 in England (don't ask me why I remember that), and I am glad.

You can never be certain that somebody committed a crime and which crimes should be punishable by death?

The death penalty is still common in some Asian countries, but the methods are horrible.

I believe the death penalty should be brought back into the United Kingdom.

I personally believe people who do inhumane things (murdering many innocent people/children, raping/abusing/torturing people/children, terrorism, etc.) should not have the right to live. People like Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Fred West, Rose West (who is currently still alive) are a few examples I can think of off the top of my head who should have received this kind of punishment.

Of course, rock solid evidence would have to be on hand.

Lot's of people have been falsely accused, of course, but here in the United States even if you are given the death penalty chances are you'll die from life in prison before its your turn.  The jail system is so backed up in that regard, and of course the taxpayers fund prisons like that--so while they wait to be killed, they get health benefits and meals in prison while contributing nothing to society--all the while costing everyone else money.

In this aspect, I suppose I am against the death penalty.  But this is with morals aside.

kill 1 person life in jail 2 death no second chance 

I think Death Penalty is reasonable for certain things.
If they have complete solid proof the person killed or rape multiple people, I think it's necessary.
They've taken innocent lives, They should have their life taken away as well.

An eye for an eye.
Kill, be killed.
Rape, be raped every day for the rest of your life in prison.
Assault, be beaten every day for the rest of your life in prison.

So on, so forth.

That's a good idea but a bit unrealistic.

just seen this and we debated this in law today
i am personally of the moral standing, that if u take a life and violate human rights, u should not have them yourself
an eye for an eye is fairly appropriate
what annoys me is this:
britains prisons are full. we tax payers pay to keep them in there, til they die, most for life, eg murderers
because these prisons are full, sentences are more lax as there is nowhere to put them, more parole, alternative forms of correction etc
which i find appalling.
we have a poor economy enough as it is, and i think it would be much more appropriate for the death penalty to be reintroduced
1 save money 2 free up space for other offenders etc

circumstances: death penalty for murderers seems far more just and reasonable than say for a rapist, or possibly terrorist.
it would probably be in the best interest of any human rights, to do the injection form, not too keen on hanging, but hey it might get more ratings than eastenders.
it would need another pre trial before any said execution, to confirm they truly did do it. i say this because there was a case of ron williams in america, who was wrongly convicted of a murder, as was his friend. they were both put on death row. they appealed long and hard, til eventually their case was finally heard and upon the pure circumstantial evidence, no actual dna proof of either men, and a "dream confession" as the book puts it, the decision was overturned.
i may seem harsh in this, but it has been put forth in the commons , with petitions of people asking for it back. i hope it does come back personally.

my friend also used an example of psychopaths.
those are a danger to society. she mentioned a case where a guy had tried to buy a gun, but was refused, got a machete, and killed the first woman he saw by decapitation, and carried her head with him, people thought it was a halloween prop. he had escaped from a psychiatric institutiony place.
i also personally feel that if they are a true danger to society in that way, and ther eis truly no way to help them help themselves, it would be safer for us all in essence i think if they were humanely put to sleep.

I've had this debate many many times. I personally beleive an eye for an eye. If you ended sombody elses life then yours should end as well. The United States still thankfully has the death penalty but it's not in every single state. Michigan, the state I live in, does not have the death penalty sadly. If somebody kills another human being they should not be able to even have the option to become free again. It's bullshit.
I don't care if the person isn't right in the head either. If they are like that why were they left unattented when you KNOW that they're capable of doing something such as this...? All in all if you kill somebody then you should be killed as well.

Stab or kill someone - It's fine i'll only go to jail - They don't even serve their actual sentence if they're good. It's bullshit. People do things like this because jail isn't scary anymore, it's more of a holiday for them. If we had something like this returned then maybe they'll be scared from it which reduce crime.

I stand by my earlier opinion - No. You can never be sure if you have the right person, hundreds are wrongly convicted each year. If they were sentenced to death then it emerged a few years later that they were infact innocent, wouldn't that be similar to murder/manslaughter on behalf of the Crown Court?

There is also the issue of which crimes should be punishable by death, and where does the line begin and end between these crimes? It's far too complicated and I'm glad we don't have the sentence, in this country anyway.

Well, I'm not much into politics or the legal side of things, so I'll just put my recent experience into it.

(In really dumb terms)

In war, there is more or less of a "Death Sentence" to our enemy, right? Well nowadays especially we can only give someone a "death sentence" if we have 100% positive identification that they are doing something that either is killing someone or is trying to kill someone.

So, honestly I think that's how it should be outside of war as well; 100% identification on the enemy actually doing the act. If you don't have proof that you can physically give to the person permitting the execution (The judge in your case) for 100% without a doubt proof.  then it shouldn't be the death sentence.