should death penalty be abolished or continued with?

Answer 1

people are dying of old age on death row. i say just shoot them. it's cheaper, more effective and less red tape b.s. to go thru.

if it worked, i would say keep it, but it doesn't , so upgrade it.

Answer 2

Personally, I think it perpetuates the crime when people are put in a position to take a life. The double-blind methods that have been devised to turn on electrical current or release gas indicate I'm not alone in this opinion.
However there are some crimes which can't be tolerated by sane people in a society. It also seems outlandish to provide room and board for such criminals, especially when it is for life and the cost is inflated by graft at several levels.
This is a serious dilemma, especially considering the numbers of innocent people who've been convicted and executed.
I believe there should be strict evidence/conviction standards for capital crimes which would eliminate the death penalty and allow appeals on a case-by-case basis if the person is convicted without those standards being met. This would basically be a refined status quo.
Those convicted for certain crimes with evidence meeting those standards should be taken out to sea beyond our national borders and then put on a retractable plank. We put them on the plank and then take our plank back. If they are guilty, the sharks will eat them. If they are innocent, the dolphins will save them. The US Coast Guard should have the duty, they don't need a formal declaration of war to defend the country, and certain types of crimes can be thought of as an attack on human society. Walking the plank can be morally justified, since we aren't executing, we are ostracizing. Besides, drowning is reported to be a euphoric death. Dropping them in the deep ocean would be like setting them free, outside of our society. They would also have a deep and moving experience of abandonment by the society they've harmed as the ships disappear over the horizon. No sound of locking doors to protect them from others like themselves also means no breakfast coming in the morning. I can't presently think of another way that gets us closer to a win-win scenario.
And, no, I don't believe a criminal should have the choice of method of execution. Once again, that perpetuates the crime, and we would not be executing, we would be ostracizing.
Incidentally, I think every person who was knowingly complicit in planning and executing 9-11 should walk the plank, regardless of nationality or financial status. Each dropped 50 miles apart. Starting wars on false pretenses should also be considered a capital crime. Texas justice, Navy style.

Answer 3

I do not approve of the death penalty because there have been too many convictions that were later overturned because of new evidence or proof that witnesses lied. The death penalty can't be taken back once the execution has taken place, but a person in prison can be freed if the verdict is overturned.

Answer 4

In response to jtaylor who said "should be expanded to all states", the death penalty can be imposed by any federal court anywhere.

Trouble is, juries in the states that have democratically repealed the death penalty tend not to -- indeed never will -- impose it.

Isn't America a great democracy?

Answer 5

Yes.

A couple of months ago, a teacher posted on the French Y! Q/A site the following: "Qui, au 19° siècle, avait proposé d'abolir la peine de mort, et, à la place, de crever les yeux du condamné ?" (Who, in the 19th Century, proposed abolishing the death penalty and, in its place, plucking out the eyes of the codemned?")

When nobody replied he added his answer "Jules Ferry". Ferry had been French minister of education, and instituted free secular schooling for everybody. I've been unable to confirm that he actually made the proposal attributed to him, and the Questioner later removed the question: still, some people might think it worthy of consideration.

Answer 6

There is no point to the death penalty,abolish it .Let those criminals rot in prison,they would rather die then spend their life in there so thats what we should make them do.

Answer 7

It's been proven that the death penalty is NOT a deterent to other violent criminals.

So what are we really doing it for? Satisfying our own childish blood lust? The purpose of punishing criminals should be to protect the innocent. Locking them up for life accomplishes that. Killing them only confirms that mankind are still brutes, not advanced humans.

Answer 8

It's working great here in TEXAS, Why pay for these idiots, they were sentenced to die, so let them die

Answer 9

Continue with it. No, it may not be a detterent to criminals, but I would feel better if they were being executed.

Answer 10

It should be elaborated on and used more.