Are there circumstances under which a murderer deserves the death penalty? In other words, should capital punishment be abolished or not? Dennis Prager explains.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! https://www.schoolchoicenow.com
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
PragerU is on Snapchat!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
There are almost no issues where I don’t understand both sides: taxation, the size of government, abortion, socialism, capitalism. As strongly as I feel about any issue, I understand the opposition.
But there is an exception: the death penalty for murder. Here, the gulf is unbridgeable between those of us who believe that some murderers – and I emphasize some murderers – should be put to death and those who believe that no murderer should ever be put to death.
Take this example:
On the afternoon of July 23, 2007, in the town of Cheshire, Connecticut, two men broke into the home of Dr. William Petit, his wife Jennifer and his two daughters. The men beat Dr. Petit nearly to death with a baseball bat; one of the men raped the doctor’s wife; and the other man sexually assaulted their 11 year-old daughter, Michaela. The two men then strangled Mrs. Petit to death, tied down the two daughters on beds, doused them with gasoline, and, while the girls were still alive, set the house on fire. Dr. Petit survived, but his wife and daughters did not.
Those opposed to capital punishment believe that these two men have a right to keep their lives. So, is there anything a person can do to deserve the death penalty? To those opposed to capital punishment, the answer is no. In fact, many opponents of capital punishment believe that killing murderers is the same as murder. You heard me right – most opponents equate the murder of an innocent family with putting the murderers of that family to death.
Opponents of capital punishment also argue that keeping all murderers alive sanctifies the value of human life. But the opposite is true. Keeping every murderer alive cheapens human life because it belittles murder. That’s easily proven. Imagine that the punishment for murder were the same as the punishment for driving over the speed limit. Wouldn’t that belittle murder and thereby cheapen human life? Of course, it would. Society teaches how bad an action is by the punishment it metes out.
And what about the pain inflicted on the loved ones of those murdered? For most people, their suffering is immeasurably increased knowing that the person who murdered their family member or friend – and who, in many cases, inflicted unimaginable terror on that person – is alive and being cared for.
Of course, putting the murderer to death doesn’t bring back their loved one, but it sure does provide some sense of justice. That’s why Dr. Petit, a physician whose life is devoted to saving lives, wants the murderers of his wife and daughters put to death. In his words, death "is really the only true just punishment for certain heinous and depraved murders." Is the doctor wrong? Is he immoral? Well, if you think capital punishment is immoral, then Dr. Petit is immoral.
And what about opponents’ argument that an innocent person may be executed? This argument may be sincerely held, but it’s not honest. Why? Because opponents of capital punishment oppose the death penalty even when there is absolute proof of the murderer’s guilt. If there were a video of a man burning a family alive, opponents of capital punishment would still oppose taking that man’s life.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/death-penalty-ever-moral
This is your worst one. This is the worst PragerU video. I watch a lot of PragerU videos and enjoy and learn from them. You did not portray this subject with the moral gravity it merits. It's not going to make me stop liking or stop watching PragerU videos. I listen to the messages and not the messenger.
I think we should also torture them, their victims didn’t get a few injections in the arms then a peaceful death, a wise man once said “an eye for an eye” they should experience hell on earth as a taster for what awaits them.
Soldat de la Liberté imprisoning is barbaric no matter how you do it, criminals don’t have the same rights as normal people even in countries without the death penalty anyway, why is the right to life any different.
Don’t respect others rights and the system won’t respect yours in turn.
Pew Series The reason we don't do that is because it's simply barbaric. Should we also execute murderers on the public square like ISIS does? Civilized countries need to act civil and stand by their morals, which is why modern countries no longer have the death penalty. It's too barbaric. Killing is killing no matter how you do it.
You make some decent arguments, but the argument about the family members of the person murdered wanting justice and revenge is flawed - an appeal to emotion.
Also, the concern that some innocents would be put to death with the death penalty is a valid argument. You’re arbitrarily assuming that everyone who uses that argument would be dishonest and inconsistent when murder cases arise - another appeal to emotion.
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
John 8:7 Jesus said, He who without sin, cast the first stone. Romans 12:19 Avenge not yourselves, I will repay says the Lord. Matt 5:38-39 Ye have heard eye for an eye? BUT I say whoever smite you on cheek, turn the other cheek......A few thoughts on capital punishment from JESEUS
I say let them die through the same way the people they killed, if there are more let them have more pain let them feel what their victims felt but barley keep them alive so they can suffer for days then finally let them die
Some murderers should die. I dont want to pay the taxes to keep them alive and they deserve to die. If I had it my way I would make the death of the murderer more horribly painful and long lasting than what the murderer is responsible fo.
These are very solid arguments...it’s just morally, I see the Death Penalty as justifiable in SOME instances:
Murder of more than one person in any case including:
If it was entirely an accident I may accept mercy and at best go a life sentence in prison, but it better be a convincing story.
Im a conservative and i have to slightly disagree with u, i think the killing of a murderer while he or she is in action is moral and also when he is defenceless, i just disagree with the goverment having the power to execute anyone when they are defencless and unharmfull, not because its immoral, it isnt, the murderer deserves it, but i think that the lesser the goverment the better thr citizen and both of us can agree on that i asume, i would say that if a victim of emotional pain demends justice he can seek it by himself and i would count that as moral altought it hurts the moral of the individual because justice in any form of taking a life is still damage. Thats why if a murderer is called upon to sentence by a form of unauthrized power i would support if given justice to the victim and also co-operated with goverment authorization with idenification of the victims and given voices to choose what to do with the offenders life and only by them, the goverment can only take this responsibility by locking him up for life if not sentenced to death by the vote. Thats the most humane and u can get in my opinion and i thought quite abit about it and it also gives more freedom to all sides even the murderer's supporters (family,friends etc) its also beneficial for the goverment and the better good
i am for the death penalty, but only to be used in extreme cases
according to me, the factors to consider while issuing a death sentence are :
1. who they killed (or how many )
2. how they killed the person / people
3. the reasons for the murder
(this goes for all crimes including murder)
I believe murders like them should be brutally killed as an punishment (medieval style.) I also believe in trials with the lack of evidence, the subject shouldn't be murder, instead they will go to jail. However, the case will still be on, and the victim would be free from jail if he is founded innocent. The victim would also be paid with a lot of money if he is innocent. If he is the murder, then he will be brutally murdered.
Ur argumentation is highly emotional. Every human deserves the same right despite the things he had done. And im glad that thats the way it is. I dont wanna live in a country where law is influenced by emotions.
Since we dont know what comes after death this isnt really a punishment its more like a way to calm down society and assure them that what this man wont be able to do what he did before so its more of whether you would to him gone and dead and forget and move on with your life or you want him punished for the rest of his time either way he will not do what he did again he might influence people in some way bad or good tho they can just minimize his communication with other
Personally i would prefer keeping him alive suffering while i watch him everyday so i can never forget what he did and always be reminded of what humans are capable to do thats what right for me atleast
So the victim should be the one deciding what is just and if his decision doesn't harm society it should be accepted
People FYI prager is not a university how can people like these conservatives say abortion is wrong but death people right I don’t believe in either but I’m not gonna be a hypocrite and just watch this like if they weren’t trying brain wash you. How can you decided the fate of a criminal but a mom not choice the fate of her unborn baby makes no sense
Yes they deserve to live
Instead of punishing people to make them avoid the mistake give them love so they regret their own decision punishing doesnt make them feel bad about themselves it makes them hate the ones who punish him
I'm against death penalty not because is wrong but because is an easy and fast solution for the worst criminals.
I mean, instead of killing him, I prefer putting them to do the hardest and exhausting jobs until the last days of their lives, or when their bodies can't stand it anymore. And of course, they'll have to earn the food they eat. I wouldn't use people's money to feed pieces of shi+s
Prager U is glorifying Judeo-Christian values so proudly, yet Mr. Prager justifies to kill, to break the fifth commandment. Death penalty is morally very incorrect according to Christianity and Judaism, thus Prager's teachings are contradictional here.
a Killer deserves to be killed.
*Even if someone killed only 1 person, he dies.*
That's it, so simple yet humans are so stupid.
*The moment you decide to take someone's life, you lose the right to keep yours.*
Anyone who is anti death penalty's judgement is clouded. think of the person you love most in this world. now imagine someone premeditatedly killing them. Stabbing them to death in the night in your home. think of the fear and pain they had to feel. if you dont think the murderer's life being taken is justice you are either docile as a cow and deserve to get stepped over like such, or cannot actually put yourself in the hypothetical situation where someone killed your mom/dad/child. its not even an argument, its literally human nature and we think were smart enough and advanced enough to fight human nature but were not. Capital Punishment for premeditated murder is the only route for true justice. You can Virtue Signal all you want about how "progressive" of a thinker you are, but we all know deep down when someone takes the thing you hold most precious in this world, The "morality" of whether they should get to live or not is out of the question.
For accidents, obviously not. but if a murder is premeditated... theres really no argument anyone can make against the death penalty. PLUS i bet a lot more people would think twice before killing someone...
There's a lot of arguments against the death penalty.
-Not a deterrent
-Doesn't lower the homicide rate
-Risks putting an innocent person to death
"A lot more people would think twice before killing" This has been debunked over and over. Do some research.
You can release a wrongly convicted man from prison if he is exhonerated
You cannot take back killing him.
I'd rather see 100 guilty death row inmates live to old age than 1 innocent man put to death, and our justice system is not flawless enough to guarantee that doesnt happen (and it HAS happened)
Besides, lethal injections are expensive as hell and death row inmates still spend years incarcerated. Its MORE expensive to kill them than to imprison them for life.
Ok so everyone who has killed more then 2 people should all be rounded up from every prison and put on an island with nothing but the clothes on their back you then build a fire ring that slowly gets closer to the center of the island you tell everyone they the final person left alive will be set free under probation you and the families who’s loved ones where killed get to watch as they gouge each other’s eyes and brain put whale betting on the whole thing. And when the final person thinks he will be let free you give the family a single shot gun where the first person to hit the prisoner wins 300,00$ now that’s a good way to spend our tax money
If you kill a murderer, the number of murderers in the world hasn't changed. I think from the moment of conception every person has an inherent right to life that can never be taken away by any person or government. Saying it is immoral to kill people and then proceeding to kill people is hypocritical. On top of that , many people have been falsely put to death or framed and put to death. In my opinion, one out of the hundreds of people that has happened to is one too many. That is the ultimate injustice in our society at this moment (being put to death for crimes you didn't commit). It's at this point in the argument that everybody likes to shift this debate into a debate about tax money and whatnot. I want to see someone debate me on a moral level.
+Jordan B. Yeeterson I mean I see how you could see it that way, but I view the main difference between money and life is that people don't have an inherent right to money where people do have an inherent right to life. On top of that, it is surprisingly more likely that you would think that people get put to death for crimes they find out later that they didn't commit. On top of THAT, I think a worse punishment than being put to death is having to wait your entire life doing absolutely nothing before doing it. This way, if it ever comes out you weren't guilty or you were framed, you can plead your case. In the day and age where deepfake videos are starting to evolve to the next level, it won't be very long before video evidence in criminal courts may not be as reliable as it was before. There are a lot of my main points against capital punishment, I could go on commenting on YouTube for days with amicable and intelligent people like you haha
+Boone Brackett Okay, but you chose to back up this point by saying its hypocritical to sentence a murderer to death. I'm going to generalise and assume you think this is is true in any scenario when someone does X to someone and is punished by having X done to them. Capiche? Would you disagree with giving a fine to a business because its manager cheated people out of their money? You're taking away money from someone to say that taking money from people is wrong. That seems like the same reasoning unless you admit there's a difference between taking money from an innocent person versus taking money from a guilty person.
What if someone keeps people locked in a room as slaves for several years, is discovered, and then a judge determines that this person should themselves be kept in a prison cell for several years as punishment for their actions? Is the judge no better than the person who kept slaves?
You fell into the trap. 'infinitesimal' is not enough. If there is the SLIGHTEST doubt then it cannot be applied with the death penalty becomes murder. Virtual impossible is also not enough. There must be NO doubt, in any regard, whatsoever with no room for interpretation, with not bias (*cough* racial predisposed jury *cough*) of any kind for it to be applicable. The US had far to many cases where some one was on death sentence just because it was 'good press' (hearsay).
But if the guilt was proven, without any room for doubt. If the killer does not suffer from a mental illness, then yes, you are absolutely right. Question remains: Is this vengeance, and if yes, it vengeance acceptable...? The 'payment' argument for such a crime certainly justifies this, but yet here in Germany, we don't have the death sentence because many believe there cannot be an absolute proof, a life sentence is still sufficient and it is the among the most hideous crimes there is (I personally would place rape equal to murder, but that is just me).
Many believe that a lifelong sentence in prison is worse than death, but I truly think that is wrong in so many aspects.
1- from a murderer perspective, it doesn't matter how heinous my crimes are, I still live, and since I won't be executed I'm the top dog in prison for the simple fact that I have nothing to loose. And you, the tax payer, law abiding citizen, you must pay for my care.
2- from moral perspective, everyone has a potential, when a person is murdered, his or her potential is forcefully taken away by the murdered. If we are a just society then every punishment must fit the crime. If someone wreck your car on purpose then the justifiable punishment is for this person to pay you a new car and other punitive damage. Then it is not much to ask if a potential of a person is taken away by a murderer then shouldn't we also take his or hers even some time it seems unjust because he or she murdered multiple people?
3- Answering the previous point, although it might seems unjust, it is justice in the eye of every family member of the victims.
4- The cost of keeping these murderers behind bars have grave consequences, first as stated in the first point they have nothing to loose therefore making them more dangerous for the guards and for other prisoners. Second it sends a signal to the society that no matter how heinous your acts are you will live. And believe me evil people exists and they have no remorse. So murdering one is the same as murdering one hundred with method that they choose, raping, burning, strangling, cut you to pieces you name it.
5- Executing the wrong people, it is a possibility, but I think the damage not having a capital punishment is far worse for all of us.
Sam M. That’s not an answer to the question. You imply that the state should impose the same immorality in administering justice as a criminal did in committing a crime. Rule of law doesn’t work that way.
Tf u talking bout? If u talking about quraan it literally says the murderer is to be killed.
And don't kill the soul that god forbids you unless rightfully.
The murderers blood is halal.
It all is mentioned.
*bro i think this guy hasnt heard of google or internet explorer. Plus doesnt he realise the difference between halal and haram meat and then realise that murder would make haram meat if it was just for fun and that would be an islamic sin*
Yeah, but the bible also says let what is Ceasar be of Ceasar and God’s kingdom be of God’s kingdom. Meaning government law is enabled and we should obey to the best of our ability. In other words. Love your enemy in my view means just that. One day I was scammed by a very intellegant guy. Lost 5grand both directly and in court to this smart criminal. He’s my enemy, but he’s not a murderer nor is he evil enough to do anything so extreme. Idk where I’m going with this, but I feel this brings some more light to this topic.
The fact Isn't simple: i don't say they should be executed (every human life mether), but also they shouldent stay in prison doing nothing; they should atraverse a percorse of psicologicaly cange, so they never re do the thing they do in the past and became, best person, working and onest member of socety; and also the family of the person that was killed must be psicologicaly helped.
I wolden't say the doctor was immoral, but i was full of revenge and psicologicaly ingiuried.
+drey santillan but even kill the murder too, and actualy my plan make the murder a bether person, to make the changed murder alive, so he could pay taxes for the cure of him-self and Victim families self, killing the murder mean lose money on is killing, doesen't psicologicaly cure the family victim and make a "bad" impact of society consideration in murdering people if they kill first or not.
Im against the death Penalty, but Not because i think they have a right to keep their lives, but because in my opinion death isnt a real punishment. Beeing locked in jail for the rest of your live- in my opinion- is way worse. You dont feel anything when you are dead.
This is a good video comparing the moral side of this debate, but can we get a video tackling wether or not we should give the government the authority to decide who gets to die? I personally think as long as it was SUUUUUPER strict than yea. But it's an argument completely ignored in this video.
4:40 but you arent the majority. In every other civilised western sociaty, the death penalty is forbidden. The EU even has a law that no country, who carries out the death penalty is allowed in the EU.
Maxi Michels so you're calling Asians and Muslims uncivilized? Just asking. The more lenient the Western Countries become, the higher the violence. Go to Singapore or Malaysia and try to peddle drugs or commit violence and let's see what happens to you. They have crime too, but less.
Hello @PragerU I'm a big fan since the time you cleared the name of Liberals, who are not Left. I want to argue tho on the moral of killing murderers from my angle, and I hope you will hear me out.
I do not want to undervalue a punishment by death, nor, I do not value lives of murderers on the same level as their victims. It's horrible, and would be unjust to do so.
What I value tho are my christian principles, that tell that no man should be forced, paid, or encouraged to kill another human being. Therefore, I see no option for killing murderers as this is that should not be a part of the system, and yet it have to in order to work as part of our society.
Therefore While I do not disagree with punishment of death, I disagree with methods of implementation, unless you have an answer to that particular argument.
For me it depends on what someone does. For instance if someone were to rape a child I would have that person be tortured in public and then hanged. I don’t care if it’s not “moral”. I believe that people can be given 2nd chances but someone who rapes a child has to know that it’s not ok and still does it knowing what their intent is. They don’t deserve a 2nd chance because 9 times out of 10 they will commit the same crime again. I really hate people who abuse or sexually assault children it’s one of the worse crimes you can commit and you deserve everything bad that happens to you. Children are the most vulnerable and when people take advantage of them it pisses me off so much.
I think Sir Prager misunderstands a lot of the points argued by opposition of capital punishment. For one, we are not equating killing an innocent family to killing the murderers of that family. Of course, killing an innocent family is abhorrent, but killing people is inherently evil and immoral and should not be done unless it's for self-defense. Another is that he thinks the opposition of capital punishment is okay with the punishment meted out by the law to murderers. Given of course, that he does not deny in the video that death penalty cheapens human life, but he just argues that the punishment given now also cheapens the sanctity of human life. We advocate the preservation of human life as much as possible, and that means no killing. However, I also believe that the highest humane form of punishment must be given to those who commit the gravest atrocities. Therefore, life imprisonment without parole is the best way to punish murderers whilst preserving human life. Another, killing disguised as "justice" by the government contradicts what the government is supposed to stand for; neither is death penalty a "retribution" for bereaved loved ones. You can look that up. Lastly, I don't think I'm gonna have to explain why believeing that there is "virtually 0 possiblity" of convicting an innocent person is stupid.
There are plenty of arguments against the death penalty that aren’t involved with the right to life. It’s extremely impractical as it costs a lot more, even with current tech there is still no guarantee the convicted are innocent (bad cops and evidence are still very real), these points are brought up a lot or are very easy to at least consider by yourself yet no-one seems to counter them?
the murderers of dr. petit's family dont deserve to die.
they deserve to be stretched on a rack, their limbs broken, then their limbs chopped into small pieces starting at the fingertips/toes and ending at the shoulder. then, being careful to keep them alive, perform ling chi on their delimbed torso. then boil it, then strip the skin off. remember, they have to be kept conscious during the entire thing. then pluck out their hair one by one. gouge out their eyeballs, cut off their ears and nose. reply any more creative ones you can come up with
I was against death penalty until now (the main argument being that someone could be innocently convicted) but this video actually changed my mind. I dont think we should take easy on giving people death penalty, but for some serious criminals they really do deserve it. And of course it should only happen in cases with absolute proof of who is guilty
Looking for someone like-minded? Chances are you’ve already got one thing in common.
15,000 New members.
Soulmates sees over 15,000 new faces every month.
#1 Customer service.
Feel safe and secure, with help from our award-winning customer service team.
Recently joined Soulmates.
Meet some of our latest members.
Online Dating Success Stories.
Intrepid explorers who’ve found the person of their dreams.
Kristian & Zoe.
"We met through Soulmates four years ago. Although were both based in London, the chances of us meeting by other means were slim. We just got married! Zoe is the most wonderful woman Ive ever met, and I know we are going to have an extremely happy life together."
Laura & Phil.
"Phil and I got married just over a year after we met on my first ever internet date through Guardian Soulmates. Weve been recommending the site to friends ever since. Thank you!" (Photography credit to Michael OSullivan)
Robin & Alec.
"I just wanted to let you know that you have another success story! My boyfriend, who I met via your site about two years ago, just proposed and we are getting married next year. THANK YOU!"
Alex & Rosie.
"Rosie and I met through Soulmates and were married in October, just 17 months later. Were wonderfully happy together!"
How does it work?
Find your Soulmate in three easy steps.
Register your free account today.