Do you agree with the death penalty?

Question

I'm against it. What about innocent people who get convicted? I don't think it's ever right to kill a human. what do you think?

Answer 1

It is barbasric and uncivilized besides being useless as a deterrent.

Answer 2

I do not approve of the death penalty for many reasons. A brief summary.
1) Most convicted felons are guilty of at least something. But the justice system isn't perfect. If we execute an innocent person, how do we make it up? We imprison an innocent person, we let him out, give him money. A dead person? What? Send flowers to his grave? Awfully sorry man?
2) It's expensive. A very small county in the state where I live had the misfortune to have two high profile Multiple Victim Capital Murder cases in a span of a few years. They made two movies about one. Perhaps you saw "Boys Don't Cry?" Or the less well distributed "Brandon Teena Story." No movie was made about Mike Ryan, but he killed 3 people in 1985. The cost of these two trials almost bankrupted the county.
3) You get as much justice as you can afford. OJ Simpson could hire a dream team of lawyers and he is free. There are hundreds of people on death row who only had public defenders.
4) The only way to make it more fair is to make it more expensive. Can we give every murder defendant a dream team? Can we give them adequate assistance of counsel as the constitution requires?
5) It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind.Bernard Shaw (1856–1950).

Answer 3

If the death penalty could be decided and implemented by the cop on the beat the way it is in Iraq today instead of having expensive juries and judges and costly court houses and fancy prisons and last meals and all that stuff, there would be no crime.

As Mohammed (pboh) said, it's better to execute many innocents than to let one guilty person go free.

China has the right idea: a quick trial and a fast execution with a cheapo bullet to the neck. The Iranians, with their hangings by crane and the Saudis with their decapitation by sword make too much of a celebration of it. John Mark Karr and all the other pedophiles, killers, purse-snatchers and petty thieves would only love to die that way. A bullet in the neck by the cop on the beat, and they wouldn't have 5 minutes, much less 15, of fame.

And they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place.

Answer 4

Yes I agree with the death penalty because, there are crimes commited that are to horrible for people to take, so they turn a deaf ear to the victum that has to either live with the crime done to them and their family or are dead at the hands of the criminal. I don't understand people that (regardless of how you feel about abortion) won't have the death penalty for murders,rapists but will kill and take the life of an innocent (society calls fetuse, I call baby without another thought??? People out there feel sorry for the criminal no matter the crime but can't hear the cries of the innocent why?????

Answer 5

I do agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances. You say that it isnt right to kill another human but would you be saying this if perhaps one of your family were murdered in the most horrific way? I dont think so. My belief is that if someone kills someone and is tried and found that beyond a shadow of a doubt they did it then yes they should have their lives taken too. Our prisons are too full of these murderers that enjoy life inside so much with all the activities they are allowed to persue while on the outside the victims families are trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives coz their loved one is no longer with them.

Answer 6

I agree with it. There is always a way to 'thred the needle' in such a way as to cause dissent and render progress un-attainable. That is what you are doing with the 'innocent people' argument.

There might be a small population of those incarcerated in US State and Federal penal institutions that are indeed innocent. There are even far fewer that are on death row and accused and 'convicted' of capital crimes; having been sentenced to death.

The Pareto Principle is at it's finest here. (first link below). However in the case of the innocent vs guilty inmates on death rows in American prisons, the 6 Sigma concept (second link below) is closer to the statistical reality. So if there are 1 million people on death row, there might be 3.4 that are innocent. Six sigma is probably even generous with the truth.

So what we are saying here, and what your 'innocent people' argument clamors to is there may have once been an innocent person get accused and convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death. And yes I saw the Green Mile.

Of more importance to society as a whole is the other side of the equation. The guilty ones who get off for what ever reason. A lot of them to only re-offend again. O.J. Simpson comes to mind.
And how many of the crimes in your local area are committed by criminals who already have a 'rap sheet'. Only to be turned out on the streets to do more crime. These thugs are the ones that make our country unsafe; cost the rest of us huge sums of money to support them; and make our country look bad.

A few years ago the politicians were slapping themselves on their backs in congratulatory style after enacting the 'three strikes' legislation in some states. Give me a break. Three times? What comes more to mind is the ol saying, 'fool me once, , ,' remember that one? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Society is getting just what it deserves when we have judges that insist on legislating from the bench; turning known criminal types right back out onto the streets; and politicians that refuse to do their jobs of enacting sound laws; all while looking the other way.

No my friend, capital punishment should be re-instituted if for no other reason than to weed out the statistically guaranteed derelicts of our society.

Answer 7

I think that there are some crimes where the death penalty is the only answer.
That being said, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the person's guilt, as well as judicial reviews of the evidence and trial.
The crimes that should be subject to the death penalty have to be very irregular, things that do not occur on a regular basis.

Answer 8

Unfortunately innocent people can and do get executed. My objection is to the cost. It takes about ten years for all the appeals to get through all the courts, while the defendant sits in high security high cost death row. Who do you think pays for all those defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, court reporters etc? We do of course.
I think every convicted criminal should be required to produce something to pay for the cost of their imprisonment. If nothing else they can turn big rocks into little rocks, we always need gravel. After 8 hours of labor then they can lift weights, go to school and file ridiculous lawsuits.

Answer 9

It is forbidden by our constitution, actually.
Keep in mind, prison has never been intended since dawn of time, as a punishment, but as rehabilitation.

Punishment, which is what the death penalty is, is irrational and always unjust because it takes something away that can never be returned, be it dignity, or the whole life of a person.

Answer 10

There are people are without a doubt guilty, people where their guilt is undeniable, people who have committed atrocities so foul, so heinous, so sick that they lost the right to call themselves human the moment they did it. For these creatures who do not deserve life, a quick death is mercy.

Answer 11

Of course, I agree with it.
Anyone who cares a whit about little girls being sexually tortured to death, would want the death penalty.
But, I know, Democrats believe the sadistic killers are victims, too..... and should be loved and cared for. I don't!