Would you be in favor of a ban on the death penalty?

Question

I personally believe that nobody deserves to die for their crimes. Not Hitler, , not Stalin, not Bin Laden, nobody. I know this is a hotly debated topic, but I just wanted to see how many responses would come in for one side or the other, and if any new arguements would pop up. Oh, and if your going to say something retarded like "only for those terrorist loving liberals" or "only for Bush and his cronies" don't bother answering, nobody takes you seriously anyways.

Answer 1

No, I would not abolish the death penalty. Anyone who plans to kill someone and does, in my opinion, deserves the death penalty. I don't mean to be derogatory, but how would you feel if they killed a loved one of yours?

Answer 2

I honestly feel that the death penalty is a good thing. I only favor it though if there has been proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. There are some people out there that are on death row that may not even have commited the crime they are sentanced to die for. Examples are like before DNA testing was done and used in courts. We have freed so many already that are in jail for crimes they didn't commit.

If there is any shred of doubt then the death penalty shouldn't be given and the person should get life.

Answer 3

I would be in favor of a ban on the death penalty. At this time in this country we are doing a poor job of correctly proving guilt and innocence. Until we can be sure of the accuracy of the court we should stop executions.

If a person can be proven, truly without a shadow of a doubt, to be guilty of murder then that person should be executed. The murder of another person is so heinous a crime that the penalty for it should be execution. But execution is the result of a trial with a defense attorney for the accused, a judge, and a jury. The trial, conducted in accordance to the laws of the state or country, is what makes an execution different than a murder. The execution of a convicted murderer is just and moral.

But we have seen too many instances where our legal system has imprisoned or executed an innocent person. Until these atrocious errors can be stopped we should not be executing people.

Answer 4

On the facts, it makes no sense to support the death penalty. Some of the answers given are wrong.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. States that have the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not.

Capital punishment costs far more than life without parole. And a great deal of the extra cost has nothing to do with appeals.

More and more states have life without parole, which means what it says. Being locked in a tiny cell, for 23 of 24 hours a day, with no hope of ever being released, is no picnic. Where this is the maximum sentence, the costs are many times lower.

The system is very error prone. DNA is not the answer. It was used to prove innocence in very few of the over 120 cases where people on death row were shown to be innocent. And executing an innocent person is something most of us do not want, so we provide for appeals of death sentences.

Death sentences can be very hard on the families of murder victims. Every time the case is appealed, they have to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift, and rarely appealed. Many victims’ family members do not support the death penalty for these reasons.

Supporting a common sense approach to how we punish murderers and how we respond to depraved acts does not mean we condone either. The death penalty is just not smart on crime.

Answer 5

i think there should be the death penalty and they should actually use it. I could write on this forever to but make it brief, does someone like Manson deserve to live? what about people who kill someone for money, not accidental, in the commission of a crime, but walk up, shoot someone, take their money and leave, what about people who rape, torture and murder, both women, children and men.
I understand peoples thinking on murder is murder, however if someone was breaking into your house and going to kill one of your children, wife husband etc. would you kill them?..well that is still murder, whether it is self defense or not.
i also think child molesters and rapists, should also get the death penalty---with tight restrictions though, just the same as all murders are not sentenced to death.
skipping a hundred more examples and reasons i will only give two more, the first is money, i would rather give my money to help the homeless, than pay to feed, and provide medical(which alot of good people do not have), for a murderer. and the second and most important reason is rehabilitation..for the most part it doesn't work...i am not talking about shoplifters, and other such crimes, but a person who has murdered someone, or multiple rapes and/ or molesters cannot be "fixed". therefore i should not foot the bill, or allow them back on the street to continue

Answer 6

Can you first tell me why Hitler, Stalin, or Bin Laden should be allowed to live so they can make more innocent people suffer? We all know counseling doesn't work, what other remedy do you suggest? Jailing them up for all eternity where they become a burden to society (through taxes)?

Answer 7

I am totally opposed to the death penalty. Only God can judge flawlessly; only God knows how a wretched, viscious, sadistic murderer got to be that way. Leave God free to do his work. Our job is to protect society. Life in prison does that; if it doesn't do it well enough, it can be improved upon.

Most of our international allies have chosen to not have a death penalty. Most of the countries we criticize as barbaric or want to "save" do have a death penalty. With whom are we aligning ourselves?? Which of these societies would you choose to join?

My family has been touched by crime, I understand the desire for revenge. I was very inspired by the Amish community in PA and I believe their compassion set them free -- relatively -- compared to those who cannot seem to recover until their enemy is not just dead, but killed.

Answer 8

Nope, in fact they should shorten the time from being sentenced to having sentence carried out. This crap about being sentenced to die then spend the next 20 or so years on death row is ridiculous. Time should be from conviction and sentenced to no more than 6 months, then maybe it would be a deterrent.
Sorry! I am hard line, you don't want to go to jail or get the death penalty then don't do the crimes. Be RESPONSIBLE for your actions and what you CHOOSE to do.

Answer 9

I'm in favor of a ban on intentional death. None of us has the right to decide who is to live and who will die, but allowing a psychopath to wander freely in society is wrong. We didn't come here to kill each other. That is a byproduct of insane thinking. I would be in favor of sending killers to an island and let them live together with no restrictions or weapons.

Answer 10

Would you be in favor of the death penalty for the person who killed your loved one? Would you be in favor of it if you knew that the person responsible for it would walk away free from his/her crime because our prisons are so overcrowded that they will walk free eventually?! Nah, we don't need a ban on the death penalty. Too many ppl out there killing ppl now knowing there are no real consequences for it. California is concerned that deathrow inmates may suffer during lethal injections?? Why should they not? Save the tax money and punish them appropriately as they punished someone so inappropriately and unjustly.

Answer 11

Yes I am and as a taxes Payer will pay 1 million dollar to keep a person for life but I will have to pay 3 million dollars for death penalty. I myself do not believe that the State has her Right to kill any person.This is my honest personal opinion.