What do you think about death penalty?

Answer 1

If killing somebody is the worst crime imaginable, I don't understand how it follows that the appropriate punishment is for the state to kill the killer.

I don't believe that it automatically affords 'closure' or 'satisfaction' to the victim's loved ones. For that matter, even if it were guaranteed that it did offer such a satisfaction, that that would be sufficient justification for the state to employ the death penalty. Surely the law is in place so that the plain and simple desire for revenge needn't be the ultimate judge of what should happen to wrong-doers.

I don't believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. Many states in the USA have the death penalty, and the USA has far more violent homicides per capita than, say, the UK, where the death penalty is no longer a punishment. The evidence suggests that nobody is deterred from committing capital offences by having a death penalty in place.

Finally, the US Constitution is fairly clear in its disapproval of 'cruel and unusual punishment', and yet no state that operates the death penalty uses a method that is without pain or suffering for the subject. Exactly how being deprived of life is not in itself 'cruel and unusual punishment' has yet to be demonstrated, let alone being deprived of life in an agonisingly painful way. How exactly does it follow that because somebody killed someone else in an incredibly painful way, then that person should in turn be killed in an incredibly painful way? How does that grant the state any higher moral credibility than the murderer?

The evidence suggests that the death penalty is nothing but a political football, used by unscrupulous politicians to gain capital from ill-informed voters.

Having said all that - if my loved ones were to be brutally killed, would I want revenge? Sure. If I had the opportunity to slay my loved ones' killers, would I take it? Maybe. I hope not. But I don't believe for one second that the state has the right to do it for me. If I did take revenge, I would do so in the full expectation that I would do time for it. And rightly so.

As a deterrent, the death penalty is ineffective. As justice, it's indefensible. There are not many ways in which we can point to progress in the area of state morality, but the abandonment by most of the world's governments of the death penalty is one of them. Any state that still allows it to be employed within its borders does not deserve to count itself as a civilised nation.

Answer 2

Against. Even the slightest possibility of a mistake is inexcusable. In addition, research has shown that the death penalty does not have a preventive role, i.e. the prospect of being sentenced to death does not stop a criminal from committing the crime. It is also very politically dangerous, because even a what is considered stable democracy may be under certain circumstances tempted to use it as a legal way to deal with opponents or simply ''inconvenient'' persons.
If the idea is punishment, then living in expectation of one's death, followed by an execution is torture of the most refined and awful type. Leaving a convicted criminal to serve life in jail with plenty of time to consider what they've done is certainly more becoming to a civilised society. The idea should be that if someone is a threat to society, it should be eliminated - this person should never be allowed to walk free. In fact it can be argued what is worse - quick death or a life-long punishment.
If the idea is to sever the genetic line of those who show anti-social behaviour, again life imprisonment should be enough. This reason is, however, questionable in itself, as then all those suffering from schizophrenia are at risk.
So, no, nothing gives a good enough purpose for the existence of the death penalty. It is more an expression of anger (justified as it can be), than of reason.

Answer 3

I think if there is no doubt, DNA or a confession or caught in the act and a jury of 12 decide a person is guilty..no doubts or not based only on circumstantial evidence only...the death penalty is the only way to go. But, do it right away. No appeals when the DNA, evidence by witness or by confession, get er done. If it's all circumstantial and no witness or no confession I think an appeal may be in order and that makes 24 people that agree, if so, go through with it. I also think crimes of passion, like if I caught my husband with another woman, I might kill him in the heat of the moment, not her...he made the choice. Then It might be life in prison. But that would make room for all the pedophiles and drug dealers that are running around loose. Our taxes could be spent in a better way than making them live the rest of their lives and getting more than the poor people in this country have. Mentally ill homeless not able to get help but, murderers and child rapist are getting fed and taken care of. Something needs to be done.

Answer 4

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/aw2TT

I agree with you. I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind: 1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person. Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. Additionally: 2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life. 3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ 4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time." 5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 5

I agree with some posters that it is not a deterrent. Statistically states with the death penalty do not have lower crime rates, and the lowest crime rates in the nation are in states without the death penalty.

However, I do think it is a viable punishment for those that show no regard to human life and will never show any such regard.

Answer 6

I think far too much attention is paid to how the convicted murders are treated than the victims that they murdered. They are stopping executions because lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment???—what B.S.

What did these murders do to get convicted? They have tortured, murdered, raped and or committed truly heinous crimes against innocent people. I don’t know about your State, but in California the death penalty is only given to the most villainous murderers. They get automatic appeals to the State Supreme Court. We give them more than they ever gave their victims and more than they deserve. Maybe it is time to quit fooling around and just bring out a firing squad?

Answer 7

If guilty, yes.
Especially people who killed 2 or more people.

Why waste tax maney to keep murderers alive.
Now people will say: They have a right and many other nonsence.
What about the victims. They did not ask or had a choice.
Many times they don't even know the killer.

No humanity for killers. They might have an abusive background or used drugs, but that is not a ticket for crime/murder.
Kill yourself if you cannot cope, but leave the innocent alone.

Answer 8

I'm not too fond of it because there are innocent people who are on death row - and I think it's horrible that they're the ones getting put to death for something they didn't do.

I wouldn't have a problem if our government took the time to figure out all the RIGHT evidence instead of rushing through it and just trying to put an end to the case. If you knew someone brutally tortured/murdered one or more individuals, and the evidence points directly at them and there's no chance of anyone else being the culprit - I'm all for it.

Answer 9

Nearly every other developed country has abolished the death penalty. It has been demonstrated time and again that it is not an effective deterrent.

I think the death penalty should be abolished. Paraphrasing Ghandi, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Answer 10

i think that in someways its good but there could be something else people could do besides the death penalty... like... take prisoners to Antarctica to do work. if they try to run they die from the coldness. so people dont have to kill eachother the prisoners would just about kill themselves saving people the trouble of dealing with them.