3 Answers

  1. No, it's not more humane: you didn't give this person his life, and it's not up to you to take it away from him (or any other third party). No one has the right to intentionally take a person's life, without exception.

    A criminal is put in jail to protect society from a dangerous person and, as already noted in another answer, for his possible correction. Life imprisonment is a measure of punishment for a person who has committed a serious crime, its purpose is not a sadistic desire to make another person suffer for nothing, but a punishment for an already committed offense.

    It is unacceptable to talk in terms of “it is better and easier to kill”, just think about what you are saying.

  2. I want to add to the minus of the death penalty and to the plus of life imprisonment. Just ask yourself, do you trust the judicial system one hundred percent? Judges are the same people and can make mistakes without any problems (it doesn't matter in which country the court is located – in developed Germany or Russia). Someday. That is why we should abandon the death penalty and limit ourselves to life sentences, even if criminals feed on our taxes. This is all a small thing, when you think that this is how a completely innocent person can be executed because of a mistake.

  3. Recently, this issue was discussed at a UE seminar. They concluded that life imprisonment is a more severe punishment than the death penalty. And yes, it turns out that the death penalty is more humane.

    Purely from my point of view, it depends on the individual culprit. Someone can wake up Conscience and suffering from the fact that he killed or something else, and who simply does not have them and will not (although it is impossible to say), then what is the point of killing the criminal? After all, the purpose of punishment is to correct criminal behavior. And the dead don't get better..

Leave a Reply