text: death penalty - for or against? back in 1945 at the nuremberg trials, leading nazis and war crimes perps were hanged - no argument - no lengthy appeal process - no mass demonstrations and appealing to the powers that be to pardon them.  now, this has all changed.  if someone has really done something that they are without rehabilitation - mass murder, sexual assault and then murder of children or eldery, serial killing - should society pay for keeping them living in a cell for the remainder of their life or should that person be - (for the want of a better word) - disposed of?  it is obvious that the death penalty is not a deterrant - look at the murder rate in la - but should a sufficiently adult and developed country flinch from executing these criminals? you're right, the death penalty is not a deterrant.  it is a purely moral issue and an understandable one.  it's not wrong to think people who do horrible things shouldn't get to live out their days, even if it is in prison and i doubt many death penalty abolitionists would be protesting to save hitler from execution.  however, the problem is in the application.  some people who do the most horrible things don't get the death penalty, and some who do things that don't rise to the level of horrible do.  i say leave it up to the victim's family.  if the criminal is eligible for the death penalty, let the family decide and let them pull the switch because they are the ones that will have to live with the pain the rest of their lives.  also, it is just as expensive to society for someone who is sentenced to death because the state pays for the appeals process, which is automatic and lasts for many years.