Are you in favor of the death penalty?

Question

If you are for it, then what if you were wrongfully convicted through some mistake and you were on death row? Would you want the death penalty then? What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes. Death penalty cases should be only if there is no shadow of doubt the person is guilty.

Answer 2

The death penalty is just the state doing what the individual did for which he is being executed. Does this not seem like a cycle of violence. The death penalty is not working as a deterrent to crime.

The principal in law is that it is better that ten criminals should go free rather than on person be wrongfully convicted. With the legal system as it is and the number of people wrongfully convicted that there are the only conclusion is that the death penalty should be abolished until the inbalance between state and citizen can be corrected.

Answer 3

I'm in favor of the death penalty. The protections while not perfect work. An appeal on several levels is automatic.
If I was wrongly convicted then I would suffer the injustice with honor altho during the appeal process I would most likely be able to vindicate myself, but if not then I would still be in favor of the death penalty.

Answer 4

I believe that in our modern society we have advanced so much to reach a conviction beyond any reasonable doubt. In this case yes i do believe in the Death penalty because it would benefit the entire society.

The fact that murderers, rapists, and child molesters have it so easy and think that in the case they get arrested the worst thing that could happen to them is spending the rest of their lives in a prison cell with three meals a day, a computer, TV, and a work out Gym, would encourage more criminals to commit a crime.

Punishment was created for two reasons:

1- To punish those who commit a crime
2- To deter others from committing a crime

Since the abolishing of the death penalty and enforcing a much forgiven punishment, crime rates sky rocketed in our society.

Answer 5

I would be supportive of the Death Penalty, only under certain circumstances!!! ~ If a person is given the Death Penalty, there MUST be no doubt, not even an unreasonable one, as to their guilt, AND, their killing must be carried out in such a manner, as to insure that their death would, ABSOLUTELY, serve as a deterrant to crimes of a similar nature!!!! ~ For instance: There should be positive DNA evidence, in the case, or perhaps, untampered video evidence, that could support the conviction!!! ~ In order to insure that the execution actually serves as a deterrant, though, it should be televised, on network television, with a preceeding disclaimer, of course, so that parents who might not want their young children to wittness the event, could change the channel!!! ~ MOST executions, however, are carried out, under a greater mask of secrecy, than was the crime, for which they are to serve as punishment for!!! ~ This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!! ~ Public hangings, on the courthouse square, brutal as they may seem, though, might actually help to make our world a safer place, in which to live and raise our children!!! ~ Without this redeeming social value, though, Capital Punishment is just murder in exchange for murder, and cannot be justified!!!!

Doc

Answer 6

You know the sad thing is if the anit death penalty crowd would make a case for real "life" in prison and showd the difference in costs of executing someone to incarcerating them for life it would make sense. What killed that argument is "Rose Bird" a California Supreme Court Justice that ruled "life in prison" was too harsh a punishment and put several lifers back on the street...California (a most liberal state) recoiled and passed the death penalty because of that. You see the majority wants punishment and they no longer believe liberals that say life means life so they want the death penalty becuase that can't be reversed.

No I don't support it; but those who oppose it have no one to blame for it but themselves.

Answer 7

yes I am in favour of the death penalty there would be far less people doing the murders and an eye for an eye sounds right but if its a person that has lived with violent relationship that then has to be considered Gwen W

Answer 8

When Elizabeth Fry, an English Quaker who lived in the 1700s, spoke against capital punishment, she was dismissed as a hopeless idealist. When the Unitarians and Universalists merged their denominations in 1961, a call for abolishing capital punishment was one of the very first decisions made by the new denomination. By that time many nations had already abolished the death penalty, and it seemed that we were on our way.
The first time I thought much about the death penalty was in a high school rhetoric class learning the art of debate. We were assigned pro or con positions on a given topic. It wasn’t supposed to matter how we actually felt about the issue, because we were supposed to be learning how to construct an argument, and we were told that we ought to be able to argue respectably for either side. I was assigned to argue for the death penalty—which I tried to do, although in the process I
quickly came to understand that most of the arguments for it were false.
I argued that it acted as a deterrent, even though all research indicates that most murders are crimes of passion committed when people are under great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol—times when they are not thinking clearly. All in the Family was then a new television show, and Archie Bunker was declaring that “the death penalty is a known detergent against crime.” But the research simply does not support this. The best I could feebly say in my high
school debate is that we know that someone who has been executed will never again kill anyone.
iconceded to my opposition that as things stood, the death penalty had been unfairly applied—with black men being put to death way out of proportion with the rest of the population. Later, the United States Supreme Court case, McClesky v. Kemp, established that in the state of Georgia someone who kills a white person is four times more likely to be sentenced to death than someone who kills a black person. I conceded that in the United States in this century, some 23 people have been put to death only to have their innocence effectively proven after the fact. Further, I conceded that the death penalty was not cost effective—that it costs the government two to three times as much to put a person to death as it does to keep a person in jail for life. These things, I argued, were a matter of fine-tuning. The system had a few bugs in it, but that did not mean that those bugs could not be corrected.
One argument that I did not put forth was that the relatives of the victims might gain emotional satisfaction from having the convicted killer of their loved ones put to death. It seemed completely barbaric and counter to everything we had ever been taught in school, church or home. One of the first rules of the playground is that just because someone hits you does not mean that you get to hit them back.
This all took place in Massachusetts in 1973. The last execution in that state occurred in 1947—ancient history for a high school student born in 1955. The last execution in the United States had been in 1966. The death penalty, we all knew, was going the way of debtor’s prisons and public floggings.
Then, three years later the Supreme Court made a number of decisions that enabled states to reinstitute the death penalty. In Utah in 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by a firing squad after protests, vigils, marches and profuse public soul-searching. I remember much was made of the fact that Gilmore wanted to be executed, although very few proponents of the death penalty are strong advocates for criminals having that much say about the sentences given to them. With the execution of Gary Gilmore, the reintroduction of the death penalty inthis country was under way

Answer 9

I am in favor of the death penalty. I think with today's technology it does not happen as much as people think. I am not saying that it hasn't happened.

Answer 10

yes, a life for a life that the basic rule since the caveman start
living as a group