do you support the death penalty?

Answer 1

Thurgood Marshell use to say that the problem with the Death Penalty is that Death is just so final.

It is understandable that a person can commit a crime or series thereof that is so deplorable that to allow them to continue to live only adds to the public grief and shame.

I would add however that such criminal minds are extremely rare.
The individual must prove to have absolutely no remorse, he must have committed a crime that envolves taking a life in a brutal and sadistic mannner, he must be proven to have been reasonably sound of mind, or at least beyond mental adversity and the crime must be proven unquestionably beyond any doubt!

Answer 2

Killing someone to deter killing? In other words, killing is wrong...unless the state does it.

I do not support the death penalty. As a wise man once said "Jesus don't like killing, no matter what the reason for."

BTW... the multiple appeals process (which we use to fool ourselves into believing the righteousness of the death penalty) is what is expensive. Much more expensive than life imprisonment. So all of you who want to 'save money' should be against the death penalty.

The next question will probably be "What about prison overcrowding?"

That answer is too easy. Quit making everything illegal. Especially victimless crimes.

But that discussion is for another day. :D

Answer 3

This is a very open question. Death penalty is the taking of someone's life as a form of punishment. It displays to the society that ~ taking one's life for any reason is wrong. Normally, this is approved by the state. In other words, it is the state that allows the death penalty to be evoked and be effective.

However, the state seems to do just what it tries to teach it's society not to do ~ take one's life. So, from my standpoint, taking one's life under any circumstances, for whatever reasons and no matter who does it - it is wrong, unacceptable and I do not support it.

Answer 4

No I don't but not for the usual reasons.

I'd oppose it even if the criminal justice system was perfect (and it is far from perfect) and even if the death penalty was not disproportionately assessed on the poor and the non white (and it is).

Nor does my opposition have anything to do with any kind of sympathy for the run of the mill criminal. I am happy to agree that they are mostly useless, genetically inferior, loathsome scum who are entirely responsible for their own actions.

Instead, it seems to me that by refraining from killing these people we demonstrate that civilized, law abiding people are superior human beings.

We should remind the criminal class that we are better than them because we react to them not with anger or fear but with contempt.

They are not worth soiling our hands by killing them. Instead we should lock them up in zoos and let the public see what gibbering, inferiors they are.

Answer 5

No and my reasons are two-fold: 1) many death sentences have been overturned, therfore there is a significant possibility we, and yes WE, not the executioner, can kill someone who does not deserve it. 2) A life of anal rape is worse than any death you can besow upon me. Highly organized and intelligent criminals are to be cut communication, so as not to further their position in prison to make for a comfortable stay.

Answer 6

Yes

Answer 7

Yes, and I think they need to clean house on all the people on death row that are sitting there for years and years costing us all money!

Answer 8

yes,

if there is a way to guarantee that the people who are put to death in our name are actually GUILTY. DNA testing has exhonerated too many people to keep it as is

Answer 9

No cuz to wrongs dont make a right,and besides u kill them then they dont have to stay locked up they are pretty much saved from the prisons.

Answer 10

not in its current form, if their going to bring juctice for the commision of a murder, the muderer should die by the same method that they used to commit the crime initially