Should capital punishment be discontinued?

Answer 1

The death penalty should be abolished. It is not the province of the state or federal government to execute its citizens. Those executions are done on our behalf, which makes us in turn carry the guilt for the executions of innocent people. Furthermore, it is much more expensive to carry out the death penalty than it is to impose a life sentence (some estimate it's as much as three times more expensive to pursue capital punishement than life in prison). Because of our constitutional rights to appeal, the appeal process cannot be truncated. If we have already executed someone and later discover through technological advancements that another committed the crime it is too late. Then what - do you execute the true criminal - thus killing two people?

Imposing mandatory life sentences guaruntees that these prisoners will not be allowed to commit further crimes to the general public. The argument that those in jail for life commit violent crimes in jail and should thus be executed to prevent it completely lacks merit: there is nothing to prevent those on death row (who often sit there for more than 10 years) to commit the same crimes. Moreover, there is not any evidence that those who commit capital crimes commit more crimes in prison than the rest of the prison population. Prison employees assume the risk of working in a prison, are trained to prevent injury to themselves and are compensated (hazard pay) for taking the risks.

It is a flawed system and will always be so. Let's adapt to modern times. Does America want to be in league with the following countries who still practice capital punishment: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Jordan, Mongolia, and Singapore? (The foregoing lists the countries who committed the most reported confirmed executions last year, the U.S. is FOURTH on the list.)

Answer 2

There are a lot of arguments for and against the death penalty. There are moral issues at play. There are studies that show it is an effective deterrent while others show it is not. There is the fact that in diverse cultures, there are racial disparities in its application; disparities based on both the victim and the defendant. There are tons of pros and tons of cons. But there is only one argument that matters.

If you have capital punishment, you will execute innocent people.

Not always and not on purpose, but it will happen. It is a man-made system, implemented by the government. It is therefore, by definition, a flawed system. Mistakes will be made and these are mistakes that cannot be erased or fixed.

The fact is that the true purpose of the death penalty is to make us feel better. We get to exercise vengeance under the guise of law and order and this satisfies our primal nature. The truly evolved human society sees the death penalty for what it is and abolishes it.

Answer 3

No,

For those that are against that even for a serial rapist and murderer of small children or any other innocent human being, would you allow a man's private's to be cut off, or his hands cut off, with no way of getting any help for his new found handicap?

Would you be willing to let an armed robber and murderer to have his/her hands cut off.

Where is the limit?

Sitting in jail does no good. If we had HARSH consequences for the horrible criminals, things might be different. People today are not afraid of consequences. Nah, so let's just let them sit in prison, work out, get stronger, angrier, etc, etc, etc, then set them free!

Hmmm, the best option to me is capital punishment.

Yes, there are innocent people in prison, but there are far more guilty than innocent ones in prison.

There are just some evil people in this world and sorry, a counseling session will not help them.

I find it so horrible that people will kill an innocent baby in a woman's womb, than kill an evil person that has murdered 27 people. Go figure!

Answer 4

No. I agree with the person who said shorten the appeals process. The death penalty is not cruel and inhumane as so many advocates of abolishing the death penalty claim. The primary job of government is to protect it's citizens from anyone who would do them harm, even from other citizens. How many murderers are repeat offenders? How many people would still be alive today if those found guilty of murdering were put to death? The way people are executed is a much kinder way than they kill their victims. I think we've all seen the Cold Case Files and other such programs on TV describing the horrible things murderers do to their victims. If these people have no respect for the sanctity of human life, what right do they themselves have to it?

Answer 5

Capital punishment doesn't actually deter crime...look how over crowded our prison system is. I say keep the death penalty and shorten the appeals process. If someone is sitting death row give them a year to appeal and get their affairs in order then cook em. That may be a signal that when you commit a crime that carries the death penalty the state means business and you aren't going to die of old age wasting the states time and money on death row.
There is no justice for the dead, but the perp doesn't deserve 3 hots and a cot for life!!!

Answer 6

No. Surely it is up to society at large to execute those who have nothing but violence and evil to offer the rest of society. Having said that, given the imperfections of our legal system and the possibility of errors in justice, there perhaps should be a supervising body or an automatic system of appeal that makes sure the verdict is indeed just. Maybe some sort of ten year "cooling off period" for advances in DNA testing and further research if the verdict is disputed. Personally, I'm in favor of it in principle when I read of certain crimes committed by those waiting for this sentence.

Answer 7

Yes and mass murders and serial rapists should be released and required to live in the homes of idiots that oppose the death penalty.

After all multiple life sentences are a terrific deterrent to prevent killers from killing prison guards or doctors or ministers. What self respecting killer would want to remain imprisoned after their first life sentence was served?

Seriously what is to prevent a prisoner serving life without parole from killing prison staff or other prisoners (like Martha Stewart) if the only available punishment is to sentence them to an additional life sentence?

A death sentence is necessary if only to maintain the safety of the brave men and women that protect all of us by working in the prison system, without a death sentence prisoners serving life without parole would be "above the law" they would be effectively running the prison.

And please don't suggest you could lock them up in solitary, the ACLU would be all over that for cruel and unusual punishment, put someone in solitary until they die from natural causes? If they were lucky they'd go insane sooner rather than later.

Answer 8

We don't. Period. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't fit with any of our other doctrines. You're using the Journal of Discourses as a source, but while I'm not at home and so can't check your quotes to see if they're in there, we don't consider the Journal to be doctrine in the first place. There's a lot of speculation in there, a lot of nonsense, and a lot of actual doctrines all mixed together. They're not our doctrines, which is why copies are so hard to track down now. We don't study or teach from them, and we don't buy into blood atonement at all. Again, it's senseless.

Answer 9

No! It should be EXPANDED! Rape, murder, sexual assault of children, should all be subject to capital punishment.

As for the 'thou shalt not kill' canard, the correct translation is 'thou shald not murder'. The Bible quite forthrightly says that the punishment of death is a just punishment for transgressions.

And while we're at it, bring back corporal punishment, too! Nothing like a good public caning or whipping to knock some sense into young criminals!

Answer 10

For:
1. Incapacitation ( no chance to commit another crime)
2. closure (victim family)
3. almost all people on death row have a criminal history.
other than the capital case
Against:
1. More expensive than life
2. Hasn't proven to be a deterent (most criminals believe they won't be caught)
3. Mistakes cant be corrected.
4. immoral