what is your opinion on the death penalty? and not just i agree or i disagree put some thought into it plz?

Answer 1

I totally agree with it. i mean just think of all the money that would be saved by getting it over with instead of setting them up for life. We could put that money back into education or social programs that would keep kids out of trouble and then they wouldnt grow up into the criminals we have today. Put em down, you would a dog that was killing chickens or cows.

Answer 2

i agree totally on the death penalty esp for serial killer and heinous criminals. Many advocates even require a doctor; in attendance to determine that the criminal do not suffer, to die as comfortably as possible. This fallacy is ludricrious at best because in the commision of the crimes, the perpetrator didn't acknowledge the the civil right of the victims.


This is one ethical issue that i feel strongly about and get so riled up at the whole justice systm. It needs to be revamped and to enforce the death penalty. The benefits of the death penalty outweighs any merits for otherwise. This will prevent overcrowding of our jails. Defray expenses to harbor such hardened career criminals with little or no chances of rehabilitation.
Just look at the double jeopardy issue. Once the criminal is found not guilty, he can not be prosecuted again even when new evidence which clearly points to his quilt surfaces. But on the other hand, such criminal is entitled to endless appeals at the
expense of the taxpayers. It's just not fair.
A lot of avenues are provided for them. including three square meals, exercise equipment and other luxuries in prison. All their demands are expected to be complied such as frequesnt visits
and accessibility to their defense attorneys, even public defenders. .
Some even obtain a law degree and become more savvy than the ordinaty citizen. while in jails. Again complete disregard for the victims whose surviving family members are now allowed to speak before sentencing. Sometimes the character of the victim is demoralized as if the victim is on trial and not the criminal.
It's asinine. Once a criminal will always be a criminal. There' s no such thing as rehabilitation;studies have proven this. Punishment should fit the crime. Then, that's justice on display.
Other countries have low crime rate because of rigid laws and strong gun control. An eye for an eye might be barbaric but 9 out of 10 that's the only language acceptable and understood. Doesn't it bother anyone when your hear of some criminal on the death row get released to the general public?

Answer 3

My main concern is the rate at which the government convicts people who are later found to be innocent. The death penalty is final, and there's no saying your sorry if you kill the wrong person. Then again, 20 years in prison for something you didn't do is not right either.

That being said, I think it should be optional for the convicts. If the convict wants to spend their entire life in some dungeon-like prison, to me that's a much worse punishment than a quick death. If the convict wants to die, or voluntarily admits to a heinous crime (not as part of a plea agreement), then the death penalty cuts down the cost of housing prisoners and reduces prison overcrowding.

So, my objections or preferences aren't morally-based, because my personal morals have nothing to do with the legal system. But there are several logistical and practical concerns that often get overlooked in the discussion.

Answer 4

The death penalty is underutilized. Every criminal knows they have a better than 95% chance of beating a death sentence. No criminals are afraid of the death penalty. I think, with the technology we have now, DNA testing should make giving the death penalty quite a bit easier. If you have the person's DNA evidence in a murder, depending on all the other circumstances, then a death sentence is appropriate. We (the US) are putting entirely too many criminals up with cable TV, 3 square meals, playtime, and a ton of other luxuries they don't deserve.

Answer 5

I approve of it. There are some acts which are so heinous that it is reasonable to conclude that the perpetrator has lost his humanity, and can be destroyed the same way as we would destroy a dangerous animal. In Seattle, a few days ago, for no apparent reason, a man broke into a house and killed two adults and two children by slitting their throats, then set the house afire to cover up the crime. I'm okay for the death penalty on this one.

Answer 6

I think that there should be limitless forms of the Death Penalty.. The people who are facing the death penalty should be facing the exact form of death that they inflicted on their victims. Or their type of death should be determined by the families of the victims. An eye for an eye!!! It should be carried out in a timely manner, as soon as they are convicted of the crime, to quit wasting taxpayer money and jail space.

Answer 7

Personally, I'm for it. Economically, I'm not sure. It costs a fortune to feed and house prisoners, however those sentenced to death get automatic appeals and lawyers until the cows come home, all on the state. I read somewhere that 40% of cases pending in federal and state courts are from death row inmates. It may actually be cheaper on society to keep them alive.

Answer 8

There is no proof that the death penalty deters crime.

Plain and simple. You are killing a human being. You'd think that more Christians would be against it due to that whole commandment thing, but let's not forget how hypocritical they can be.

Answer 9

It requires too much thought, and I have long ago came to the conclusion that i cannot agree or disagree, in general. Instead, i have to look at individual cases and form a decision from there.

Answer 10

I think the actual person that end's the prisoners life is just as guilty as the person he's killing. And it just seem's so medieval. .But at the same time maybe there would be more murders and crimes if this was not done?