Death sentence. Yes or no?

[Qwark]

Puppyroach said:

Qwark said:

WoodenPints said:

I'm for it. letting them jail out will likely cost more innocent lives and keeping them in jail can cost a lot which could be put into benefiting the general population.

As an European )Dutch' where the death sentence is forbidden for quite soe time I completely agree, why would you want to keep an insane serial killer or psychopatic terrorist alive, just because he is a human.

If another animal so much as touch or is suspected to have hurt another human being it is getting killed, so if some sick bastard kills, torture and rapes multiple humans or children I don´t see a problem, evidence must be hard and cristal clear. 

So you think it is justified to take lives? Teaching people that killing is wrong by killing people?

Well some psycho's are to far gone, take mr Breivic for instance or Sadam Hussein. Mr Assad and leaders of IS have caused to much pain. And I would rather see serial killers and psychotic terrorist and mass pedophiles dead than coming free. Lifetime doesn't exist in the Netherlands 30 year tops, less with good behaviour. It shouldn't be a regular penalty by any means, but I believe that in a few cases the dead penalty is the best penalty.

 

Btw if a dog bites someone, even out of self defense or someone during tresspassing it gets put down. Is that any bit fair.

 

It's not okay to take lives and doing so multiple times will put your own live at risc.

People fear dead, and fear is as pain an excellent teacher dead so killing them is a good method or shouldn't we lock kidnappers, same principle.