Would you say the death penalty is basically murder?

When the state executes someone they are murdering them?

Whats your argument if yes or no?

Updates:
Follow up question: If a guy got revenge on someone for killing a loved one of theirs by killing them, would you call that murder?

0|0
97

Most Helpful Girl

  • One could argue that, since it involves taking the life of another, then it is indeed murder.. Albeit one with a "just cause" (what, exactly, that entails is a debate for another day!)

    However, if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

    The death penalty fails to fit this criteria since, under US law, it is deemed to be lawful.

    The question you're arguing does naturally provoke a debate on semantics.. "Does the death penalty and murder mean the same thing?"

    Clearly, as shown above, no it does not.

    However, what I believe you're asking is "Morally, are they the same thing?" which is a much deeper, more difficult to answer question.

    There are arguments for both sides, of course. It is taking a life of another and therefore - no matter the reason - it is murder in a sense, yes? But then again, they've done actions so wrong that they themselves exist outside of the law and, as such, the death penalty could be considered just and fair.

    It can go backwards and forwards all day, you're never going to get a 100% clear answer on this.

    0|2
    0|0

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 8

  • No.

    When a person decides to take a innocent persons life and/or to torture the person like rape for example, they give up their right to be treated as a human being. I'm absolutely finished with any type of compassion for brutal killers and rapists. In the past I still thought "shame" but now after a horrifying incident that happened in my country I've had it. A young girl called Anene Booysen was gang raped and cut open alive (her intestines was found next to her). Sick people like that should be tortured to death. They should have all their rights taken away because that's what they deserve.

    As for your update. Very complex issue but yes I'd regard it as murder because the original killer should be dealt with by a court and the police, not by the victim's friend/lover/family. That's crossing the line by taking such a serious matter into your own hands regardless of emotions.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Someone already mentioned it, but if it is punishment, it's not unlawful, although technically it is murder.

    Prison should be a place to rehabilitate criminals who will one day be thrown into society again. In my opinion, there is no point in tax payers supporting criminals who will never become productive members of society. If they can't be rehabilitated, get rid of them.

    They contribute to nothing in society and there are MANY killers who show absolutely no remorse for their actions and can even admit that if they were let out of prison, they'd do it again.

    1|3
    1|0
  • Nope. The death penalty is fine as long as it fits the crime be it murder or rape as long as it was proven.

    0|1
    1|0
  • yes. it's murder.

    regarding the update...yes, I would.

    0|0
    0|0
  • nope...i don't think its murder.thats what those guys deserve.

    0|0
    0|0
    • what about the update?

    • well...its murder too.cause he doesn't have the right to kill them.he should've brought murder charges against them & the law could take care of it.someone's life is very valuable,u can take it ,but you can't ever give life to something.so its better that you don't play with it.

  • well arguments for the death penalty are: deterrent, people don`t have to be afraid that such monsters break out and murder or rape again and of course you safe a lot of costs! you as the taxpayer pay the jails, the securitymen, their meals ect

    against death penalty: well sometimes you can`t be sure if you got the right person or an innocent person, also there is the discussion if people should be murdered as a penalty

    like they murder people and their penalty is murder, so the state murders somehow too because what gives someone the right to kill a person even if the person is a monster and killed others

    hard question and I am glad I don`t have to answer it

    0|1
    0|0
  • yes. I think it is.

    a life for a life is not constructive...and the law can get it wrong.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Regardless of my actual opinion on the death penalty, technically, the definition of murder includes the criteria of "unlawful." If capital punishment IS the law, then it's not unlawful :P Pretty convenient for them.

    0|2
    0|0

What Guys Said 7

  • The death penalty is basically murder sanctioned by the legal system based on the actions of the offender. There are some positives and negatives regarding it, but if it works properly, then it actually works not so much as a deterrent but to help keep law abiding citizens safe. If you keep a person imprisoned who has a long history of hurting and killing innocent people you will always run the risk of that person escaping to bring about more harm to those citizens. I'm not saying that killing someone should be welcomed, but sometimes I feel it best to eliminate someone for the greater good of the community at large.

    0|1
    1|0
    • If someone killed the person who killed their loved one then yes it would be considered revenge, justifiable, but revenge. Law enforcement doesn't smile on these acts so it's best to leave it to them. If it is possible to kill someone to prevent the loss of a loved one then that would be the most rewarding because you don't lose your loved one and you possibly will save additional lives by taking the life of that perpetrator.

  • "Murder" is a legal term, the precise meaning of which varies between jurisdictions - but generally speaking, a killing must be unlawful to be considered murder, which rules out executions (but a revenge killing most definitely would be considered murder, as it's both unlawful and clearly premeditated).

    I think I can see where you're going with this, but the point is that in every civilized nation in the world, everyone is entitled to a fair trial etc, which is not possible if you allow vigilante justice.

    0|1
    0|0
  • "Pardon one offense, and you encourage the commission of many."

    You need to punish the worst crimes with the worst punishments if you ask me :/

    As for the revenge, I don't see that as a valid excuse for murder: Both should hit the noose :P

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes, I think it is, but its approved by society so that makes it ok.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm guessing this is related to the Jodi Arias case.

    I don't like the death penalty at all. they have found people innocent after they had already given them the death penalty. How is this fair to the families of the accused (if all they're going to do is take another life, if they are in fact, innocent)

    0|1
    0|0
  • I have no problem with it some people just don't deserve to live after the crimes they have done.

    0|3
    0|0
    • Yes it i, it is only okay after due process has been done.

    • But what if even through due process they got it wrong? which has happened

  • No. Why should someone who's murdered another be able to live out their own life? I think that in a case where it is proven someone is guilty of murder, that they themselves should be executed.

    0|3
    0|0
    • ok that's fine that you think that, but why wouldn't you say that executing someone is basically murder?

    • Show All
    • Why not? what's your argument?

    • I come from a very old-school family where things have always been eye for an eye. If you come into my home and kill a member of my family, you will be dealt with by someone before the police get to you. It's again an eye for an eye. If the government executes someone for killing another in violation of law, that is not murder.

Loading... ;