Yes, but the victim’s family should decide the punishment

1. There is always the chance of wrongful incarceration 2. The death penalty is disproportionately given to minorities 3. It takes far too much time and resources keeping someone on deathrow

Evidence has shown incorrect arrests throughout history so there is a potential of murdering an innocent person.
Revenge rather than forgiveness or justice is ultimately damaging to the victim’s family and does not provide closure.
Having the person who did this come to understand the pain they have caused and having to live with that is a more suitable punishment.
Grief is not logical so the victim’s family may make one decision borne out of pain that they may come to regret.

Death penalty should not be legal regardless, though a crime committed, members of the general public not on a jury should not decide the fate of others

No matter what someone does, no one’s life should end, a lot of the time death is the better alternative than spending life in prison with a guilty conscience knowing they’ve ruined their life

I disagree, there should be strict legislation involved for all perpetrators, with no exception of cases.

'An eye for an eye' solution to justice leads to an endless cycle of death and vengeance. The guilty party should have to live with their actions while also paying back to society for their crimes through community programmes/ upskilling.

No because the people deciding punishment should not be the people most scorned in the situation as it’s bias and unfair.

The victims family have a clear bias as they could impose punishment far too extreme during a time of grief or mourning. There is a clear conflict of interest and the decision should be made by a third party jury with no association to the victim or the accused

It is a cruel and inhumane thing no individual family member or not has the right to decide another man’s fate in this sense

The victims family has no education and knowledge let alone the right to kill someone on their own accord. Should be based off the outcome of the case and the maximum punishment should be served not life for life.

Why would you put them through that emotional turmoil at such a vulnerable time? Will they have to live with this decision for the rest of their lives? What if not everyone in the victims family can agree on a punishment? How will you help them then?

No one wracked with grief like the family of victim should be given such a permanent and critical decision after enduring such a hard time that would undoubtedly affect their rational and calm thinking and decision making.

The State should not be given the power to end someone’s life. The Innocence Project shows that many people who have been put to death in the United States may have been falsely convicted due to poor legal representation etc. The death penalty is permanent and irreversible.

I find the death penalty very contradictory. I don’t believe in killing someone cause they done that to your family member. I believe it’s the easy way out and they do their punishment and think about every day what they’ve done to someone’s family

No because the victims family will have no remorse and not think responsibly and probably order a death penalty

What happens if they chose to kill the person and it was later established they were innocent. Should they have to carry the burden of the reality that they were responsible for the suffering caused to that person and their family. Nevermind the conflict a discion like this could cause between family members and the way they may feel pre and post immediate grief.

the death penalty only continues the circle of violence. if we decide as a society that the killing of an individual is wrong, why is it okay when the judicial system says so?

Private citizens should not be allowed to be apart of the process of our justice systems, this is why we have judges and barristers

No, in any case, the death penalty is based on a non-confirmed religious stance that he who is sent to death will go to hell and be punished that way. The only way to ensure punishment (and self growth) is long or life sentencing in jail. Death could be seen as freedom for some.

Impulse and emotion will be running high and might make a decision they regret. However, they should be able to have input and voice their opinion

No one has the right to decide if someone else lives or dies and a victims family would likely be extremely emotional and could make a rash decision they would regret later in life. A life of punishment is more impactful on the criminal than death.

Definitely not, a completely biased decision from people most likely with very little education on the subject.

No one should receive death penalty as no person even if permitted by law should have the power to take someone’s life. Death penalties are legalised murder.

There is zero good reasons to support a death penalty. It's the one punishment you can never reverse if someone is wrongly accused and those who 'deserve' the death penalty would suffer more in prison for life than they would with a quick death.

This is not a good stance and the perpetrators should pay for the crimes they commit by sitting in jail for the rest of their life, if someone is executed it just means they don’t have the time to think about their actions.

The victim’s family will decide based on emotion. Not every family will have the same thought process and this would mean that the accused is not getting equal treatment to another accused.

The victim’s family could very well be biased (eg. racist, misogynistic, antisemitic) and killing is morally wrong. Revenge after revenge by doing the same crime they were found guilty for is stupid.

Nobody should decide the punishment on a death penalty. Putting this into the hands of a family is emotionally and psychologically taxing on them, and they may not know how to make the most informed decision in their time of grief/coping. The death penalty has been abused time and time again to kill innocent individuals with little to no consequences for those who make these mistakes. It is better to suffer in prison for your crimes, than die.

An eye for an eye' solution to justice leads to an endless cycle of death and vengeance. The guilty party should have to live with their actions while also paying back to society for their crimes through community programmes/ upskilling.

I don't believe justice should be taking a life for another life, rehabilitation and time served is enough justice in my opinion

the punishment is not about vengeance, it's supposed to be about justice and rehabilitation something only really the judge and the governing authorities can deal with

The victims family are the most compromised group of people in this case to deliver judgements on the accused. The burden of an incorrect sentencing, which is inevitable, should also not be placed on them.

Anger would completely distract from the most suitable punishment whether it be jail or rehabilitation and the hurt the families feel would lead to the most brutal form of punishment, which is not justified

The law is the law, if the law forbodes the death penalty then there should be no exceptions. If it was legal let the courts determine what qualifies the death penalty and what does not. If you have no experience dealing with the law in such a fasion, like most families will not, it is not your place to decide someone conviction.

They are not qualified to decide. It's inherently personal and subjective and therefore it's impossible to ensure equal treatment.

The death penalty is fundamentally wrong and hypocritical, as it contradicts the core principle that killing is morally unacceptable. By sanctioning state-led executions, societies perpetuate a cycle of violence, undermining the value of human life and the pursuit of justice. Additionally, the death penalty is fraught with systemic biases and errors, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and leading to wrongful convictions. Studies, such as those by the National Academy of Sciences, estimate that 4.1% of death row inmates are innocent, highlighting the irreversible and tragic…  Read more consequences of this practice. Moreover, the death penalty fails as a deterrent, with no conclusive evidence showing that it effectively reduces crime rates compared to life imprisonment. Embracing the death penalty while condemning murder is a profound contradiction, exposing the hypocrisy in a justice system that aims to uphold human rights and equality.

They are not qualified to decide. It's inherently personal and subjective and therefore it's impossible to ensure equal treatment.

It would be unequal to allow this, and families in the heat of the moment may make decisions they subsequently regret

There are numerous instances of innocent people being convicted of murder. Do we want to allow victim's families to kill innocent people.

Absolutely not there should be no bias and based on fact. That being said, there’s always a case of mistaken identity.

No. There are laws for a reason and precedence’s for a reason which is fairness and justice. If civilians were to have a say in punishments there would be no purpose in court of law.

The death penalty is wrong. There should be a clear punishment decided by the courts, which will remain the same for all. This will provide certainty and predictability and most importantly fairness

No, because the death penalty is already a faulty method of punishment, so putting it in the hands of emotionally compromised and biased people only stands to make the death penalty an even faultier instrument than it already is.

I believe the death penalty is not a just punishment in any circumstance due to the number of individuals wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit.

It is not up to the victims family to decide the punishment. It should be left to an unbiased group of people from all backgrounds to decide.

They should not, they are alreday after suffering the grief of a traumatic experience and could be clouded by the intense emotions that follow this. No one should be killed by the death penalty as it just creates an endless cycle of death and suffering for all involved.

I think they should have some input but not total decisive power as emotions can cloud a just decision

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. A family who is grieving and who have been through the trauma of a loved one and then a court case are not in a position to make that decision. Our judges are the ones given the power to decide sentences for a reason.

it would be a bias judgement made with emotion as appose to a non judgemental, unbias knowledgeable decision with all factors and evidence considered from both sides.

emotional trauma and grief can cause rash and illogical decisions, life in prison to rot is a harsh enough sentence to make up for it

I don’t agree with the death penalty at all. I don’t agree with this answer either because their emotions would be heightened. Better to have somebody impartial.

The victims family are 99% percent of the time going to clouded by their own judgement and overwhelming feelings and won’t be able to think rationally in that situation.

Vigilante justice is not and never has been a fair system of justice and the victim's family deciding a punishment is an offspin of that, the state and those appointed by the state should be trusted to deal with offenders fairly, unmarred by emotional response of those involved.

It’s cruel and unfair to ask a family member to make a judgement call like that. In any case no one should have the right to decide whether or not another person gets to live or die.

the victim's family are more than likely reacting off emotion, rather than logical, and may very likely regret their decision in the future.

We can not decide who lives and who dies. If we are to punish people for murder, we ourselves can not then go and commit it. You can not give that type of power to a victim’s family as they will not be in the right state of mind to choose the moral decison.

Nobody deserves to be killed deliberately and the victimes family could choose dehumanising and horrible forms of punishment, giving them that power is dangerous

the problem with this is most family’s would choose death penaltys. the convicted person could later be established as innocent and the person would have been killed wrongly

My argument would be that if you’re looking for punishment then they’re not in the correct mind set. I believe in rehabilitation.

The Victims family are most likely not going to be well versed in the regular punishments for crimes so they shouldn’t be the ones picking the punishments.

the death penalty should never be an option, it is inhumane and a life sentence without the possibility of parole I think is worse

When people are bereaved their judgement can be clouded, they may regret their decision after they have decided.

i am anti death penalty but i can’t imagine what that is like and i completely understand why they want this. i think in some circumstances it’s acceptable but in general i am against the death penalty

There decisions will be tainted by feeling and grief, and history has taught us from the UK and US that many people have been wrongly convicted in the first place. One innocent person being placed on death row is one person too many.

absolutely not the victims family would say death every time. it should be a secure jury trial with competent representation

Look at the cases of people being falsely put on death row, it’s too risky to decide something that important.

I think a victims family should have some say in the punishment of the convict but I don’t agree with the death penalty under any circumstances.

Not really fair letting just random every day people play god like that it should be done by the judge and jury

Death Penalty is a harsh form of persecution and a person's death should not be decided by another person. I think life long sentences would be more adequate, but possibly a more mentally torturous punishment.

The judiciary are an independent pillar of the justice system. They're too lenient with sentencing in Ireland but that doesn't mean emotional victims and family get to decide. We do however need harsher and longer sentences for crimes particularly for recidivist offenders and violent or sexual crimes

I believe that victims family’s are in a far too emotionally vulnerable and unstable state to decide the punishment. A far worse punishment is giving the offender a life sentence and making them live with their crime

No individual person or persons should have the power over life and death of another person. Power is a dangerous thing and power over life is the most dangerous.

In cases of innocent victims being put on death row as well as individuals being sentenced the death penalty due to influences outside of their control like class, race, gender etc then how is that fair? no human should have the right to take another humans life

I believe it should be up to the family what punishment should be however I am very anti death penalty

I think that's immoral, on the family as much as the imate.they could easily ask for something horrific, or even if they ask for a "simple" method like the electric chair, you don't know if they can handle the responsibility of dolling out death like that. A policy like this is just begging for someone to get further traumatised after a horrific tragedy

That would be very unethical as they are coming from a highly biased and highly emotional point of view

Victims family are not of a clear mind having gone through such a traumatic event. theres a reason doctors cant work on close family members etc

I think victims family’s fell a lot of emotion at a time when a crime has been committed against them and so it can be hard to make a well thought out and logical decision. This idea may lead the family to later regret and feel guilt over a decision they made in anger. I also think punishment for crime should be standardised and one person should not be punished more than another.

The victim's family's judgement could be clouded by their emotions towards the case. They may make an impulsive decision based on this, without thinking through the consequences of their actions.

I don't think this would be a responsible thing to do seeing as sentiment is involved, I do however, think it is fair to hear out what the victim's family would consider to be an equitable punishment and use that as a reference to whatever would be truly just in retributing their punishment.

Death penalty is an easy escape. The convicted person will more than likely still feel the crime they committed is justified. Prison time forces them to think about the consequences and effects of what they have done regardless of what their family believes is adequate punishment.