So I thought to myself, this forum sure lacks a decent thread for Capital Punishment / The Death Penalty. So I decided to look at the last 3 pages of this forum I found no trace of a Capital Punish thread / debate and if there was I would only assume they have been closed or trashed by now.
 
Now as we all know, Capital Punishment is when someone is put to death by law through the court, this also known as the Death Penalty. But my question for you is this : Can we fully justify killing someone? Is it morally right. I hope we can cover the wide diversity of the topic in this thread. Things to think about and take note of :

• Is it morally right? Can you justify taking someone's life?
  
• Is it worth the cost? Does the human life have a cost?
  
• Can it be classed as inhumane? 
• Could that person be changed?
  
• Is it vengeance rather than retribution? Is a life for a life always fair?
  

Please take these into consideration before posting so we can avoid spam such as Yes it can be or no it can't. Since after all this is a serious subject and should be at least be carefully though through. Avoid gore such as methods of execution if you intend to go into detail about them.

Time for my thoughts :
I would have to say it cannot be justified as the justice system has let us believe. To start with the justice system is not always right and for example Troy Davis whom was an American Man was convicted of murder without significant evidence and was later executed in Georgia. This shows that the justice system is still not one-hundred percent reliable and it even goes further by the fact that all but two of the eye-witnesses withdrew there statements from which they had given to the police, not to mention the fact that one of the remaining eye-witnesses that didn't withdraw there evidence later admitted to owning the gun that was the same model as the killing weapon and he also supposedly admitted to another eye-witness that he himself was in-fact the murderer. Even with so much pressure to let Troy go free, the Justice system refused and he was sent to death on September 21, 2011. This in all goes towards the fact that the Justice system can be corrupt. I would say that allowing him to die was immoral and inhumane.

Troy Davis was one of the forty-three prisoners send to death in 2011 this cost the American Government lots of money to execute these small amount of prisoners so why is capital punishment so expensive in comparison to prison?
Legal costs : Those convicted are rarely those of rich heritage and most of the time they cannot afford their own attorney
to defend themselves, it is required by law that the state must give them two public defenders and pay for the prosecution
costs.
Pre-trial costs : Too deem a person guilty experts must collect evidence such as forensic evidence, social history and the
mental health of the defendant. This adds to the cost of the execution.
Trial : A death penalty charge can take up to four times longer than a regular case and thus costs four times as much.
Incarceration : Due to the fact those on death row have to go into solitary confinement a special facility is required to hold
the convicts until they are fully prosecuted. These have to have much more security and more accommodations since the
prisoners are in their cells for 23 hours a day. 
Appeals : Each inmate is entitled to appeal, these costs are at the tax-payers expense, but these are still important as
the convict may present enough evidence to be deemed innocent.

Overall this costs a lot more money than just keeping them in jail. Can that be justified? Specifically when partially the tax-payers have to pay for them. Not to mention even going through this system and being cleared as innocent you will still be deemed guilty by the general public...

Now of-course legal issues are one of the many topics of Capital Punishment, however what about the effects on the families of the dead? Would it be fair to allow the killer of their beloved family member to go free once more? But is it really enough to allow them to just get it over with is killing them enough? Vengeance and retribution are very hard to control. Another point is rapists aren't put on death row, child molesters aren't either. These are the people who should be on death row, because the thing that keeps them going in prison is the fact they know they will get back out and repeat what they did in the first place. It sickens me that murder is classed as worse than rape, rape can mentally scar someone, a murder gives them nothing more...

So why not tell me your thoughts on the matter below, feel free to use my points against me by disproving them as after all I am open for debate. Try and avoid going into details with gore though since there are children on the site.

I am a strong republican however I think capital punishment is wrong. I do however think people should be locked up. I believe in second chances so I don't think killing another human, no matter how evil they may be, is justified. I am a Christian and I believe that "Thou shalt not kill."

I think it can not be justified, some people would say and eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth...... but then the whole world goes blind and did anybody actually gain anything?
I will answer a few of your points.

Is it morally right?
I believe not, can a person ever be proven guilty beyond belief? if not what if that person was innocent? Who would be accountable? As a Christian I also believe that the killing of another human is always wrong regardless of what that human has done.

Is it worth the cost?
Well it is a lot cheaper than imprisoning somebody for life so in terms of time and financial cost yes. But if you consider the emotional cost of the convict's families then no because they would have to go through the same trauma the criminals victims went through and I believe nobody should have to go through this, at least if the criminal was in prison they could choose whether or not to visit.

Can it be classed as inhumane?
It depends on the method of execution, if it is by lethal injection then no providing nobody is watching, if they are it is a form of unnecessary humiliation in their final seconds. I would consider any other form of execution inhumane due to pain or the defamation of the criminals corps

Could that person be changed?
I believe that is down to the criminal, most criminals will but if it is an offence punishable by death as we are discussing now then no, they are probably scared by what they have done making them unable to change in their life time.

Is it vengeance rather than retribution?
There is a very fine line between the two because they are subjective, the victims of the families would consider death to be a suitable punishment but others would not, I think this is the major divide between opinions and to be honest I think people will never agree because it is subjective and because we have free will. Personally I think it is vengeance rather than retribution because has the criminal had to do anything to atone for their crimes? No. The criminal would have had to have a lifetime in prison which will take its toll on a criminal more than a death sentence as they know they will never leave that prison and they will never have an easy life. If the victims families' wanted the criminal to suffer then surely this would be more effective

I am and have always been against the death penalty.

I really don't think it could ever be classified as morally right. We as humans do not get to decide when a person is to have their life ended.  I genuinely believe that the death penalty exists to keep  the amount of people in prison to a minimum. News sources say its because they could cause father harm, but I say that if you put them in prison for life, then they couldn't cause any harm at all. 

Is it worth the cost? I am currently unaware of what it costs.

Can it be classed as inhumane. Yes. Yes. I believe it is a thousand times over. Strapping someone to a chair and then killing them is absolutely horrible. Some will say they don't suffer, but I don't think we can be sure of that, unless of course we tested it on someone willing to die. I personally would rather that the executioner just walk into my cell and shoot me in the face, then have to sit there and die while people watch. Forcing that on someone is one of the most cruel things I can imagine.

Could that person change? If he performed a crime punishable by death, then I would think he would be in prison for life had he dodged the bullet of capital punishment. I don't think that people can change, but in this case, I don't think it matters.

Is it vengeance rather than retribution? Judges are trained to be objective, and I would like to think that it is retribution, from the judges point of view that is. I don't think we would ever be able to tell.

mrfe : As an Agnostic Atheist I do not know every single part of the bible but I do wish to bring up a certain bit of the bible now. For was it not in 1 Kings 18:40 that Christians killed? I'm not sure if this was before the 10 commandments or not but it is worth bring up is it not?

ant123ant : You weren't restricted to what I gave you to think about by the way.
ender44 : It is a open subject after all. I reworded that part to make it more understandable.

ant123ant, As a Christian you yourself cannot deny the death by law in the Bible. This shows that of-course that it has been this way for a ridiculously long time. Proving someone innocence of guilt is the key part of the death penalty. But the thing is you are correct no one person can be proven guilty beyond belief. I assume you disagree with the eye for a eye / life for a life argument that is made on this topic frequently. I see were you were coming from, we as humans are blind and we truly aren't perfect. The price of execution is far greater than you would think due to .... just read my post I already covered that. It has large costs due to the fact that there is far more involved with getting someone in a chair or a needle in there arm. There are methods of killing people without pain. However these have not and probably will not be implemented as a large majority of pro death are against the painless death. Many of the currently used methods of execution are brutally painful and I feel they are so inhumane. "they are probably scared by what they have done making them unable to change in their life time." How would scaring them keep them the same way exactly wouldn't going through this process having a chance for you life to be stripped from you or staying in a cell for the rest of your life not have an effect on you, mentally or physically. I will disagree with you and say this opens them up for much change. After all the human mind is fragile it isn't hard like granite it can be molded like clay. Finally we have retribution and vengeance. You are right both are rather subjective something I never took much though about. But I feel as if even if a family is grieving they want the murderer dead for vengeance, minds are clouded when mourning and thus I will say that it is more vengeance as they are less likely to care for retribution as they are to inflict more pain upon the murderer. And honestly I would say living in jail is more retribution, it forces the murderer to think about his actions. This may torment him... a death is simply a quick way out.

ender44, Pretty much what I said for ant, but I do think you are somewhat right with Judges being trained to be objective rather than subjective. But can you really objectify a subjective topic? That is my question for you since I myself cannot answer that.

iN008 : I know I wasn't restricted but I could go on forever and I injured my arm the other day so I don't want to aggravate it by typing too much. About the criminals not changing I meant their ways will not change to be positive but rather become more negative because of resentment, it could even push the innocent to have clouded morals and become twisted against society.

Well I'm at a stalemate on this topic, in the 10 commandments (which I tend to live by in my everyday life) says thou  shall not kill, but I could see in some cases where a certain individual did horrible and unforgivable crimes to humanity in which the punishment of death would be a(n) except-able  punishment. 

   The majority of people won't break a law because, well, it's a law. Many more people wouldn't dare cross over the legality line if they thought they would be executed for their crimes, it would more than likely (in my opinion) cut down crime. Where do you draw the line? Petty crimes and misdemeanors are admissible and someone's life shouldn't end because of it. Then comes murder, but what if it's self defense? Who's lying? Who's  innocent and who's guilty? No matter how perfect a legal system may be, defects and accidents are sure to happen. But for every felony, execution should definitely be and option. But, going back to the misdemeanor, for criminals who keep getting misdemeanors over and over again at some point  execution should be an option for the court.
       This is a little sloppy I know, I'm sorry.  I don't find religion to be a valid argument for or against capital punishment. Next would be people who are morally against it; the people who say death is never an option. EH, believe what you want, but sometimes you need to push your morals aside when you have to think about your family, your friends, your peers, and your neighbors. 

There is a thread asking if capital punishment should be brought back to the uk. In that i stated no european country who is in the European union can use the death penalty, because it is explicitly banned under the European human rights act.

As for morrally right, I honestly dont care much for the rights of people who dont acknowledge those of others.
If someone has no hope of release they should be given the choice of death or life incarceration.

If they are completely unrepentant and deemed beyond rehabilitation again, i see no reason to hold them, they are a liability and a potential danger.
To conclude I wouldnt object to its use for the most serious offences, but within reason and with several conditions being applicable to its use.
Oh and like lightknight said, Undoubted guilt would have to one of said conditions.

mehsk1ll :
There is no statistical evidence for that. After european countrys banned the death penalty there was really no change in crime rates. Look at the last few hundred years of european history where half of crimes carried the death penalty. And yet crime was more endemic back then. The increased crime is a mark of the times, not the punishment, but the fact it was so endemic only goes to show that criminals dont think things through before acting, because they dont actually expect to be caught. Ergo the punishment is at the very back of their minds. On top of that many people feel they just dont have a choice. That isnt a justification of their actions, simply an observation that I really dont feel that the reintroduction of the death sentence would change crime rates for those countrys that dont currently carry it out.

Oldschool41 :
Im going to disagree with you over theft. I think death is only appropriate when you have removed or permanently and extensively damaged an individuals life. Such crimes as Murder, rape and where any of those 2 meet children.
If you steal money that is a crime. The scale of how much you steal really isnt significant, in fact iof you stole that much from an individual arguably they dont really need it. Its a crime but that wont completely destroy a persons life. Theft of that scale tends to be on a corporate level such as embezzlement or bank robberys.
Also a lot of places allow the criminal to choose. I remember reading of a guy that choose the firing squad stating "at least you guys will have to clean up the mess".
That hadnt actually been used in the us since the 2nd world war and unsurprisingly they turned his choice down as it is a fairly messy and unpleasant execution for all to see.

ant123ant :
"then the whole world goes blind"
Sneaky, thats a ghandi quote

Capital punishment, while overused, can be justified.

Taking a life can, in special circumstances, can be moral. Lets say a man walks onto a school campus with a gun and begins shooting at kids. It is totally morally justifiable to kill in order to stop his attack. It is not morally justifiable after the attack to kill the man, regardless of his past murders. The man is no longer a danger and the attacks have stopped. The only reason to take a life after the crime is if the potential for the person to continue to do harm while incarcerated is too great to insure public safety. This would be few and far between and only include people such as mob bosses, political leaders, cult leaders, and the like. Basically, if the person alive could/would still control an army (or some sort of group) that would continue to endanger the public, removing the leader is the only option to ensure safety. Again, this is few and far between.

These few cases would be worth the cost. The benefit of public safety versus the costs of execution is no contest. The reduction of capital punishment cases would save on costs, but honestly, there are many, many ways to decrease costs or even make a profit in the jail system (Huntsville State Prison in Texas used to not only grow enough food to feed every inmate, but also made enough license plates to generate an income for the state of Texas. Due to regulatory laws, it now costs the state of Texas around average of $60,000 per inmate).

If we torture them, it becomes inhumane. Attempt to get them to talk in order to fight the organization that the country is at war with. If they do talk, they do not get death penalty. If they refuse, they must be executed for public safety.

Potentially, all people can be changed. Also, most people do not pose any threat to society once in jail. Mass use of capital punishment is facilitating revenge, not justice.

If an action is not done for the good of the defendant, the good of the victim/victim's family, or the good of society as a whole, the action is unnecessary. Capital punishment rarely provides any sort of improvement to anyone (in fact, many times it is an outlet for revenge and increases deprivation in society).

Is it morally right? Can you justify taking someone's life?
I would say it's justified giving a number of reasons. First, if a person kills 5 or less people with a motive, it should NOT be execution. If the person kills 6 or more, or anyone without a motive regardless of number, it should be execution. Though, to be sure, a VERY lengthy trial should be carried out to prove the person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, IMO, if it's just one, 15 years in jail. If it's 2, 30 years. 3-5 would be life in jail.

Is it worth the cost? Does the human life have a cost?
It would be worth the cost and not at the same time, with the points mentioned above.

Can it be classed as inhumane?
Only if the person hasn't been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or if the person turns out to be innocent.

Could that person be changed?
Well... they could at least deserve a slight chance...

Is it vengeance rather than retribution? Is a life for a life always fair?
No, I say it's retribution.

If you kill you should be killed in return. It's as simple as that. I also believe that rape and child rape should be punishable by death. Think of how many prisoners would be killed that deserve it. If you are basically proven 99% guilty, then you should be killed for certain crimes. Think of how much tax money could be spent on something besides giving worthless pieces of s*** a place to live and food. And I'm not talking about death sentence the way it is now, where you can spend decades waiting. I mean like bang, 2-1 homes street justice. Just kill 'em out back as soon as they're proven guilty.