Do you believe in the Death Penalty? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No.

As a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, I would cite the following reasons:

(1) Death is an irreversible punishment, and overzealous juries/prosecutors get it wrong WAY too often. (RECENT EXAMPLE: Read "The Innocent Man", a nonfiction book by John Grisham.)

(2) Taxpayer dollars spent on criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution. Yet, statistical data is clear that the death penalty and tougher criminal sentences does not deter murder or violent crime. Why? Most violent criminals are sociopathic/psychopathic and simply do not rationally weigh the consequences of their actions before committing violent crimes.

(3) The numbers indicate that the death penalty is not imposed upon the worst of the murderers (i.e., the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed). Why? Truly disturbed seriel killers more often than not have mitigating circumstances that get them out of the death penalty (e.g., severe abuse as children). Second, the death penalty is most often sought where the prosecution can get an easy sentence (i.e., the person who drove the person who pulled the trigger, because the person who actually pulled the trigger ran to the police and got a plea deal for life without parole).

(4) Prosecuting the death penalty costs taxpayers more than simply giving them a sentence of life without parole. Why? Courts want to do everything they can to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Unfortunately, innocent people are being released from death row routinely, despite the fact that they had numerous appeals.

(5) The death penalty is not fairly applied. For example, Harris County, Texas prosecutes more death penalty cases than the rest of the State of Texas combined. Is that fair? Is it fair that a black defendant who kills a white victim is 8 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white defendant who kills a black victim? Is it fair that over 90% of the defendants on death row in states like Texas, which have no public defenders, had no money to hire an attorney and had to receive court-appointed counsel, most of which have no criminal law experience?

(6) Once again, criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution. Although victim's families will say, on the eve of execution, that the death penalty gives them closure; pyschologists who actually follow up with victim's families will tell you that is a fallacy. (Read up on it for yourself.) If the government wants to be in the business of making victim's families feel better (as opposed to making society safer, which is the primary purpose of criminal law), then it would better devote the financial resources to providing psychological services than seeking death penalty prosecutions.

(7) The assertion that a person who commits murder poses a risk that he/she will murder again is ridiculous if the alternative sentence is life in prison without possibility of parole (as it is in most states for murder). A rapist or other violent criminal is just as likely to murder or commit violent crimes on other inmates than murderers are. We are not making other inmates (all of whom commited violent crimes if they are in high security prisons) statistically safer by killing murderers.

Now, my Christian view:

(1) One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses says "Thou shalt not kill." That's a period at the end of that sentence. It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless the person you are killing killed someone else." There is no "unless", no "if", no qualifiers whatsoever.

(2) In response to all of those "good Christians" who are often so quick to cite the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) as grounds for supporting the death penalty, I would direct you to two passages from the NEW TESTAMENT:
(i) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other also." (Matthew 5: 38-39.)
(ii) What did Jesus say to the robbers sentenced to death who asked for mercy? (See Luke 23: 39-43)

Lawyer it up all you want, so-called "good Christians," but Jesus made clear in the Sermon on the Mount (the "new law") that it is what is in your heart, not technical rules, that matter.

Answer 2

I am, on a general basis, against taking another being's life. However, there are criminals out there that I don't believe we should have to feed, clothe and house after they have shown their complete disregard for the rules of society - by killing innocent people or whatever. Obviously, not every criminal in the system should have to worry about the death penalty. I see the opponents of the death penalty saying that we shouldn't have the right to take another's life and that may be, on a basic level, true. There has to be punishment for that action by the society, though.

Answer 3

Yes it's Biblical. The death penalty was established as a human judicial law by the God Yahweh Himself and is one of His Mosaic Laws which many of these laws were judicial laws for a country to run it's government by. It's purpose was to both remove the law breaking individual from society and scare the rest of the people into controlling their actions or else the same would happen to them. Yahweh Himself is being quoted in The Bible speaking and teaching this death penalty law to Moses after the Israelites exodus from being slaves of Egypt. The death penalty was and still is considered a justified killing of a convicted criminal and not an act of murder in the eyes of our God.

Answer 4

I do believe in the death penalty for worst of the worst offenders. Our system of incarcerating the criminals is flawed and worst of the worst should be executed. Consider... Not long ago in Florida a man was executed for raping and killing 2 girls ages 8 and 10. It could be argued that when he was executed, he suffered pain for some time (it is scientifically proven that they are in paid for about 30 seconds to a minute). Should his pain (even if it is for an hour) been considered? I don't think so. What about the paid he caused to the girls and to their families?

I think that our system should be more retributivist in nature (eye for an eye). In countries, like Iran, that do have a retributivist system, crime rates are much lower than here. If one is caught steeling, he will lose his hand... This may seem barbaric at times, but don't you think that those who rape and kill are any less barbaric? Is there a humane way to take life???

Answer 5

I support it, but I think it should expand from murder to pedophiles as well. And have restrictions for them, like pedophiles cannot choose the mode of death. My opinion: give them the rusty guillotine.

Answer 6

I believe it's wrong to take a life, even if it's the gov't. However, there are some criminals out there who make me wish I supported it.

Answer 7

I'm definitely against it.I'm not particularly religious but once I heard a sister say that God gave you life and only Him can take it back.So it's not a human being privilege.

Answer 8

the system is flawed, and corrupt, death is final, and its more expensive........want more?