Death penalty? Your thoughts...?

Answer 1

The Death Penalty is a harsh sentence, the harshest that society can give, but I SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY.

If a person killed 15 people then how can his one death pay back that crime? Why don’t we kill him 15 times! You can medically induce a heart attack and then bring them back with a defibrillator. Of course this would be cruel and unusual punishment and it would be illegal according to the 5th amendment. The Death Penalty has been challenged several times in the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being cruel and unusual punishment, it has been upheld each time.

I have mixed feelings about the Death Penalty. People claim that it isn’t a determent to crime; people still murder each other. I also think that that it is used too often, my state is famous for it.

However, the Death Penalty does have some advantages. It is the ultimate determent for the murder. John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, will never kill anyone again. Even if he was given a life term for each person that we know he killed, he would still be a threat to his guards and other prisoners. What’s to stop him from committing murder in prison? Are you going to give him another life term? That wouldn’t be a determent. And if he should escape then he will go back to murdering people again. However, if the Death Penalty was a possibility then he might think twice about committing another murder. We can’t ask him if this is so, because he is dead, and I think that is a good thing.

Charles Manson is as crazy as ever. He built a “family” and inspired them to go on a killing spree. Charles Manson wants to do nothing more than to incite hate and violence. To that end he has had a tattoo or brand of the Nazi symbol placed on his forehead. If he escapes from prison there is no doubt what he will do. He will start another “family” and send it too off on a killing spree. Manson has even said he will do this. If he were dead, killed by the Death Penalty, then that wouldn’t be a threat. As it is we have to keep him locked up for the rest of his natural life. He is a threat to his guards, other prisoners, and a continuing threat to society itself. We can’t kill him though because he didn’t go on the killing spree himself, he only inspired it. Meanwhile I have to spend my tax money to help support him for the rest of his natural life.

The Death Penalty has its advantages. It is something to hold over prisoners. If they murder another prisoner then they could have to face it. It also prevents us from supporting a prisoner for the rest of his life. That’s a cruel fact, but true. It will also prevent a murderer from ever killing again.

When the Death Penalty is applied it should be done so only as a last resort and under special circumstances.
-- First a higher standard of guilt should be met. The jury must be sure, beyond a SHADOW of doubt that the accused is actually guilty. A murderer can be convicted if beyond a REASONABLE doubt the jury considers him guilty. A higher standard should be held for the application of the death penalty. Just how stringent that standard should be is up to the Judge’s instructions, and the jury. Also our legal system is based on the idea that we would rather not convict 100 people, if that means convicting 1 innocent person.
-- Second the person should be considered a continuing threat to society. A man who finds out his wife is cheating on him and then kills her, may not be a continuing threat to society (unless he gets married again). He may be unstable and should be sentenced to a long prison term, but I don’t think he should be subject to the Death Penalty. The ultimate penalty should only be applied only to people who are likely to murder again; preferable only to people who have committed multiple murders and proved that they will kill again, if given the chance.
In some states there is another condition that can cause the Death Penalty to apply. In New York it is called Special Circumstances. If the crime was especially heinous and awful then New York considers it a crime worthy of the death penalty. The decision to try and apply this penalty is up to the District Attorney’s Office, but the jury should be the ultimate panel to decide if the Death Penalty should be applied or not.

I also think that a death penalty should raise an automatic appeal. This is done in most states, but the appeals process is limited. A case can only be turned over if there was an error committed in the trial. If some rule was broken, or if a procedure was violated. The person cannot be re-tried and new evidence cannot be introduced. I think that the judges should be given more liberal standards. They should be able to weigh new evidence or examine anything that sheds a new light on the case. The case should also be reinvestigated. This doesn’t mean that old evidence has to be recollected, but it should be gone over and checked to make sure it was collected and handled properly. This review should be done by a state official independent of the first investigation.

I don’t like the Death Penalty, and I think that it should only be applied in rare circumstances. However, there are some murderers that warrant this kind of punishment. These people need to have that penalty available to protect society.

Answer 2

Not used enough. We need to punish bad people who murder. There are too many soft liberals who give killers more rights than victims.

Use the death penalty:

1. Killing of a cop
2. Killing of a witness
3. felony murder
4. Killing of a prosecutor, judge, or anyone directly related to a case you stand for.
5. Killing of a prision guard while in prision.

You will hear liberals say that the death penalty is unfairly applied to blacks. The argument is blacks get it more than whites. The answer is keep it for the blacks who deserve it and give it to the others who did deserve it, but did not receive it. Just because something is not applied when it should does not mean it should never be used.

Answer 3

Hmm..

MI doesn't have capital punishment. Here are some cases that really should change peoples' minds about this silly prohibition.

- Crazed drug addict breaks into house and murders 4 members of a family with an ax.
- Convenience store robber, on camera, takes out the witnesses in execution style
- Some kids from Detroit area hop train to Flint (Saginaw?), where they meet some people who take them to a field, rape the girls and execute them.
- Man & woman kidnap a woman during a carjacking, then murder her in cold blood.

Not one of these has any question about the guilt of the people convicted. These are all heinous murders that merit the death penalty. The fact these murderers still live is a disgrace. They have forfieted their right to live, by their own actions.

Answer 4

I am at the moment still pro death penalty. We need to send a message and provide an ultimate punishment for some case.
But, at the same time, if harsh life term sentences were imposed, that wouldn't be too bad either. 10 hours of hard labor 6 days a week for the rest of their lives in an isolated prison, with no tv.
Now, if they get life sentences where they can enjoy themselves with other inmates, tv, art. I have a problem with that. The person they murdered can no longer enjoy anything, why should they?

Answer 5

I used to think it was OK till I heard about a man who was executed in England just before the second world war. He was found guilty of killing an innkeeper. In fact the real killer was the innkeeper's wife's lover. The woman admitted it after the murderer had himself been killed in the bombing of London by the Germans a few years later.

There was another case in England in the late 1940s when a 14 year old boy shot and killed a policeman after a bank robbery went wrong. His accomplice was 18 years old but was 40 feet away and not armed when the boy shot the policeman. Before he died, the policeman testified that the 18 year old had called on the 14 year old not to shoot. That was backed up by other witnesses. When the case went to trial the 18 year old was held to be equally responsible for the murder and was executed, being over age. The 14 year old spent about 5 years in a reform home and was released.

In New Zealand several years ago a farmer was released from prison after serving more than 12 years for a murder. He was released when it was found that detectives had concocted false evidence against him. The same thing has happened in Australia.

In Australia Mrs Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of the killing of her baby daughter Azaria in 1980. Mrs Chamberlain claimed that she had seen a dingo (wild dog) take the baby out of the tent they were using at a camping ground.

Despite the fact that aboriginal women said that they knew to keep a close guard on babies when dingoes were about, Mrs Chamberlain was convicted. The prosecution evidence was not very good, stains in the car which were said to be blood were actually sound insulation glue and the manufacturer later found that the batch of chemicals used to detect blood was faulty. But she stayed in jail.

After a few years part of the baby's clothing was found which was consistent with her story but denied the prosecution case. She was released immediately. Two books were written about the case and there was a movie as well a few years later. (Evil Angels)

Too many innocent people have been executed. If you put them in jail and it turns out they were innocent then at least you can release them.

Answer 6

I used to be against for a long time. I felt that no one can take another person's life but God. Then, someone I know was beaten, mugged, and left to die. He passed away and his murderers were never found. Now, I'm for the death penalty. Things change when a situation hits so close to home.

Answer 7

The death penalty is fair for people who murder in cold blood, do exceptionally brutal crimes, repeated rapists, or child molesters. I support it in cases where there is no doubt that the perpetrator on trial is the criminal who committed the acts.

Answer 8

Doesn't prove anything. A person cant reform when they're dead. There have been many cases of false accusations and people being left on death row for many years, only to be completely cleared of all charges.

Killing someone doesn't make what they did right, it doesn't balance anything, it just means that you've killed someone and killing another sentient being is wrong.

Answer 9

The death penalty is barbaric and wrong. Two wrongs does not make a right, and in this case it serves no real purpose other the inacting revenge. The government should never be involved in murder unless in self defense.

Answer 10

It depends on the conviction/crime. Sometimes I say "yes" and sometimes I say "no". Death is an easy way out, and some convicts deserve to suffer for what they did.