I hate it, so no

Yes! if the preventing unit has you in a minority report, well my friend you are going down...

I'm for it. Though I do believe there must be absolute 100% certainty of the crime and it has to be extremely severe.

General Response to the Cost Argument:

The actual cost of death penalty trials and appeals is far greater than Life Without Parole costs, and while Life Without Parole does obviously catch up as time goes on, it is not even nearly as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. It seems that, while the numbers aren't always clear, the death penalty trials cost about a million more than life without parole cases, and maintaining an inmate on death row (which averages over a decade) costs about $90,000 more per year than maintaing an inmate alongside the general prison population.

Assuming the average cost of maintaining an inmate in the general prison population is $50,000 (slightly higher than estimates for argument's sake), that means it would require being in jail for 47.6 years before breaking even with an average death penalty case...

Reposted from the other thread:

What he did was terrible because he took lives. You'd think people would realize that taking a life is terrible but unfortunately people are still happy to see this guy be put to death. How does this make sense? Why do people justify certain things just because it matches their perspective. A person who supports death is a person who supports death, period. A person or community should never make decisions on another persons life based off of human perception. People just love to think that if something feels morally right then its right. This shouldn't be the practice when the human mind is so full of itself and has incredible emotional blockage. Who are we as human beings to decide the fate of another person, we can't even come up with a proper Court system, fully support our own governments/products/policies that have come to fruition since we have organized ourselves as systematical human beings.

No!

Worst part is that you can't take it back when later on it's clear that the person is innocent

It outlived it's use when it started to get "humane" ways to kill the deathrow inmates. They where originally meant to both scare and embarass potential criminals with an extremly painful, public death, but the way it plays out nowadays this just doesn't work anymore - and can't, as even proponents of death penalty are againt those torturing preactices.

Up until the 18th century a death punishment was also meant to be a very embarassing public torture: Short drop hangings, where the victims would not only slowly suffocate, but also loose the control over their muscles and ending up with bot an errection and literally shitting their pants, braeking wheels, where the victims got slowly beaten to death, brazen bulls where the victims got cooked to death, their screams being heard through the mouth of the bronze bull in an amplified and distorted way, boiling, which is essentially the same, exept the victim gets fried as well, the slow fights to death and agony in the coliseums in the roman empire... you get the idea.

It was a scaretactic, but it doesnt work that way anymore. A normal prison sentence is much more humiliating nowadays than a death sentence.

Also, if we kill a killer, aren't we technically killers too, and deserve death sentence in consequence? What makes murdering a killer better than than the murder(s) he comitted?

Yep. As long as we are 100% certain, I am for it. I think it should be used in more cases than just murder too.

I feel like certain people deserves a lifetime of torture and bad stuff done to their rectum but I'm completely against the death sentence.

only for drug dealers, pimps and child molesters.

For those complaining about keeping murderers alive because of tax costs I then propose to take all murderers and turn them all into a:























HUMAN CENTIPEDE

Then we would only spend money feeding the first prisoner. Money saved!