Should we abolish the death sentence?

Question

Why or why not? Please explain your reasoning.

Answer 1

I do believe in the death penalty. If someone commited a crime serious enough for it (like killing someone else), I'm for it.

The death penalty is enough to make someone think twice before commiting such a crime.

Answer 2

No. The death sentence serves the purpose of removing the most heinously violent criminals from society permenently. Some crimes are undefendably horrible and life in prison is not adequate, especially considering issues such as overcrowding, the drain on tax dollars, release due to appeal, and the possibility of parole. I do believe that too many innocent people have been executed and therefore we need to reevaluate the process and institute reforms. This is why the death sentence should not be handed down unless there is no reasonable doubt. But for cases where there are eyewitnesses, video recordings, dna evidence, or other irrefutable evidence, and the death sentence applies, then I have no problem with expediting the process. I also do not agree with offenders spending 20+ years on death row; that is an undeserved waste of tax dollars. I also believe in harsher punishments for violent repeat offenders, especially if their crimes are against children. Finally, there needs to be a work program, such as the old chain gangs. Repair highways, make license plates, etc. The current system isn't working.

Answer 3

I tend to say no. The death penalty would actually mean something if we did not give these guys 10 years on appeals, and have them hanging out in prison watching cable t.v. all day and eating three meals a day. The cost of watching them is too high. I'm all for not killing the wrong person, as in an innocent, but with technology the way it is today, that is a highly unlikely situation. Look at this Karr guy in Colorado. 15 years ago, he'd be on his way to the chair, but because of DNA technology, we know it was not him. So I think that as soon as someone is convicted of a capitol crime, and sentenced to death, the bailiff ought to just put one in his/her head and dispose of the body. Then it might actually be a deterrent to someone. Oh, you know what else would be fun, public hangings, now you want to talk about a deterrent. Or maybe just maybe even the guillotine.

Answer 4

It's easy to say you're against the death sentence until somebody savagely murders your honey, your parent, your child, sister, or best friend. When you actually go through that kind of loss, THAT'S when you can know your heart's opinion. If a human being can deliberately murder someone, that person is responsible for taking a life and should be prepared to give theirs. I do NOT think that accomplices (who didn't have hands-on assistance with a murder) should be sentenced as badly as the actual killer. An accomplice is NOT always just as guilty. Many killers are remorseless psychos who don't belong in our neighborhoods any more. I also don't think it's right to fill up the prisons with them and let taxpayers foot the bill, so many of these psychos who love death so much should be put to death. It is about protecting the lives of others, and ridding ourselves of those who disregard life because they are dangerous.

Answer 5

Yes. The death penalty is wrong for many reasons beside the obvious moral issues. 1. Statistically it is prejudiced against minorities and men making it inherently unfair and unconstitutional. 2. The number of death penalty cases that have been reversed after new evidence is astounding and there is no fixing that mistake once a person has been executed. 3. All methods of execution are cruel and unusual punishment as outlined in the constitution. 3. The biblical "eye for an eye" defense of the death penalty is flawed. Do you really believe that the same God who said we should not judge would trust our judgment in matters of life and death? The vengeance is for Him. 4. Talk about cost. The cost to execute one prisoner far exceeds the cost of housing him in prison for life. I could go on forever but I urge you to get the facts!!!! Check out www.antideathpenalty.org

Answer 6

if the system that we employ to condemn people to death leaves any room at all that someone can be sentenced to death wrongly, it should be abolished. Texas recently discovered a wrongly accused man, and had his death sentence overturned-posthumously! the family of the wrongfully executed man tried to file a wrongful death suit, and the texas supreme court issued an opinion saying " the state met it's burden of persuing the ends of justicein the trial which found the man guilty, the state showed no negligence in sentencing and carrying out the execution, as the jury found him guilty, and the state carried out the punishment accordingly." so, they are saying the jurors said kill him, so the state killed him and the facxt that he was innocent has absolutely no bearing on whether the family should be compensated for the loss and grief of their loved one being MURDERED by the state. cool, huh? you betcha. yeah, do away with THAT.

Answer 7

No I think we should change it so that the sentence is carried out more rapidly. I think the cruel and unusual punsihment part is the WAIT and the APPEAL process. If a person is caught red handed in the act then justice should be swift. That person has no place in society as a whole. Can contribute nothing therefore must be dealt with. Less tax payer dollars going to food and tv'son death row too

Answer 8

The death penalty should be mandatory for anyone who kills a police officer in the line of duty, and it really should be mandatory in cases of premeditated murder. With today's forensic ability, the chances of an innocent person being convicted of murder are slim to none, and a person who is guilty of such violence poses a danger to society, especially a cop killer. A person who arbitrarily kills someone else (not in self-defense or in the line of duty as a police officer or military person in wartime) has elevated themselves to the position of god, believing he or she has the right to take someone else's life. There is NO WAY we can trust a murderer who says "I'll never do it again," so the appropriate remedy in the interest of keeping citizens safe is the death penalty or life in prison.

Answer 9

Absolutely not, in fact, we should hurry up the process. I do not believe we should just kill off everyone on death row but come on...can anyone tell my exactly WHY Charles Manson remains on our payroll? The blatantly guilty people should just go straight to the chair. If someone hadn't murdered Jeffrey Daumer, he'd still be on our payroll. That's just wrong. Thank goodness Florida and Texas take it a little more serious than the rest of the states.

Answer 10

no, there should be limited appeals also. im all for making sure that we have the guilty party but 10-15 year wait for execution is ridiculous. i also think they should be public (more of a deterrent)
reason? i dont see the need to keep murderer/rapists/violent people around. we dont have a prob putting down a mad dog do we? I would actually endorse a law that would change the "third strike" from life to death, but dont expect to ever see it

Answer 11

we shouldn't abolish the death sentence because it's the only effective way to punish criminals for their wrong doing. If someone were to harm your family member in some way, its most likely that you'll want the same degree of punishment to be done to that criminal. likewise, if someone killed someone else, then the person the killed deserves to die as well.