Are you for the death sentence? (see specific details below before you answer)?

Question

Remove all arguements of cruel and unusual punishment, the death penalty is not a deterrorant, "we do not have the right to take a life" - the PREMISE is strictly that by killing this person - they would never be able to kill again.

Also, the evidence would have to be absolute! a judge would NOT have the power to decide what evidence could be introduced at the trial or NOT introduced as they can now. The evidence could NOT be CIRCUMSTANCIAL as the evidence was in Scott Peterson's trial (although I thought he was guilty the evidence was all circumstancial). An appeallate court would ABSOLUTLY have to rule even if it were to affect the career of the prosecutor or judge in the lower court..

Answer 1

An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

Answer 2

You have so loaded the question that's it's really nothing more than a statement.

First off, you have to define what you mean by "absolute" evidence. Who determines that it is "absolute?" What if the "absolute" evidence was improperly collected/handled, manufactured or mis-interpreted? Secondly, by removing the main function of a judge, you nullify the validity of the court. Next, by excluding circumstantial evidence, you are removing the basis for the vast majority of convictions and defeating the purpose of the justice system. Finally, an appellate court is already required to make a ruling.

The primary argument, which you didn't address, against the death penalty is the possibility that while the "absolute evidence" may seem sufficient at the time of trial (as has been the case in numerous instances where convictions have been proved wrong by advancing technology), it may lead to the execution of an innocent. Once the sentence has been executed, there is no going back.

.

Answer 3

I just did a debate of this subject in my public speaking class. I am for the death penatly. Regardless of costs or deterrant effects. The death penatly isn't about revenge it is justice. I would rather sleep at night knowing that that person would never be able to kill anyone again. If they got life w/o parole instead and broke out of jail then they would kill again or if they were unable to break out of jail then what would stop them from finding ways to kill people while in jail like other inmates or prison guards. They would have the max punishment already so it would affect them at all by killing more people. Life w/o parole is as bad as it can get in some states. Look up how many people are killed while serving short sentences in prison by those who will never get out. You put innocent people lives at stake by not following through with the death penalty. That is wrong.

Answer 4

I definitely believe in the death penalty. I believe all criminals should die exactly the same way they killed their victims.
You are right, though, I believe there should be 95%-100% proof that they did the crime. I believe they should let any evidence in if it proves towards their innocence or guilt.
I also believe that in murder cases the "double jeopardy" clause should be abolished. Murder should have no boundaries.
The death penalty should not be "abolished" just because a small percentage might not be "guilty" of the crime.
These criminals have to be "scared" of something. With all these people on the criminals' side regarding the death penalty, they have something to lean on; which will make it more likely they will commit more crimes.

Answer 5

I am against the death penalty because I feel it's wrong ; and it's not a deterrent . Even if it was - many times innocent people end up on death row .Some are freed through DNA testing - and many before them went to their death unjustly . If the possibility exists that an innocent person is executed for a crime they did not commit - how can we risk a human life ? It's wrong .Scum bags who commit heinous crimes need to be locked away from society forever .

Answer 6

Considering that so many people who were determined to be guilty are now be exonerated by DNA evidence - no way. Of course, it's easy to say that when it's not my child that was raped, tortured or murdered. In that case, I would likely be for it, if I didn't take matters into my own hands.

I do believe that every state should automatically perform DNA tests for anyone sitting in prison if evidence is available. It would cost $$$ but so does them sitting in jail.

Answer 7

There are some crimes that are so heinous, that the perpetrator should not be permitted to live in society again. So for these people do you keep them in prison for the rest of their lives or put them to death.
I vote for put them to death but I feel that the methods of execution are too easy-they should be drawn and quartred-then maybe somebody else will think twice about being a bad guy.

Answer 8

I used to be very pro death penalty. Over the years I've modified my position to support the death penalty for only the most gevious and heinous acts.

I now favor exile. I would very much to see our worst criminals sent to a remote island. Let them figure out how to survive there.

(wouldn't that make a great tv show?)

Answer 9

It really sickens me when you hear about people who we're given the death sentence, and years later found they we're NOT guilty. think about the families must be feeling? It has happened more than people realize.

I think if the accused were given life in prison, with no possibility of getting out, that would be much more of a punishment than death.

Answer 10

there is little reason to torture. certainly, torture is a custom of lack of ability to extract solid tips. an quite in a position interrogator could have the potential to get tips without doing something different than conversing to the prisoner. normally, a solid interrogation will bypass with an incredible, tender intro, and the interrogator will attempt to endear themselves to the prisoner. they are going to attempt to get them to confess to a "lesser evil", and furnish them an incentive to talk. people who recommend torture will tarnish u . s .'s image, and positively hazard "retributive justice" human beings infantrymen being tortured. Torture seems to be little extra effective than practice that u . s . has the skill to be above worldwide regulation. the U. S. undermines worldwide regulation and treaties at its own price. or perchance the Bush administration is merely utilising it as a custom of be certain against the conflict on terror. needless to say, there are extra effective common the thank you to try this. including making a severe attempt to transform the U. S. military from a protection rigidity designed to combat third technology conflict to 4th technology conflict.