Death Penalty/Capital Punishment!!!!! For or Against it????

Question

Just want to know what's your opinon on the United States' Capital Punishment law better known as the "Death Penalty. Are you in support of such a law or opposed to it. Personally, I'm against it but not for moral reasons like many people. To me it seems that the law makes our government seem hypocritical. What I mean by hypocritical is that our country makes it illegal to murder someone yet the courts in many guilty verdicts will sentence the murderer to death, doing the exact same thing that he or she did. That doesn't make sence to me but that's just my personal opinion though. Either way, I respect both sides of the argument so I would appreciate it if you could tell both where you stand on the issue (for/against) and your reason, preferablly with detail. Thanks, and I respect all answers and appreciate them!

Answer 1

I am absolutely against capital punishment! As you pointed out yourself, it is extremely hypocritical to sentence someone to death for having killed someone else. However, it must be taken into consideration that people put on death row did not just commit one crime, but various serious ones. These criminals should be taken away from society permanently but not by means of death. I feel that everyone sentenced to death should recieve a lifetime of jail. People who i have expressed this belief to dont agree mostly because people in general do not realize exactly what it is like to be in jail. It is not this place where your cell mate becomes your best friend as portrayed on tv, it is a place where you fear for your life and future everyday and become almost completely drained of all emotions...almost like you cease to exist. I have never been in jail but i have witnessed many people sharing their experiences.
Also, death is something that is portrayed differently by everyone, usually being heavily based on religion. My religious beliefs include that after death comes heaven, but the truth is that no one really knows what happens after death. I feel that by executing a criminal they are given an easy alternative to life and punishment.
But there is more than just a moral outlook on this subject. How many people in the past have been innocently executed? People that agree with capital punishment dont realize one important factor; death is permanent and can not be undone if a mistake is made!
Ted Bundy was a serial killer who admitted to being addicted to pornography. The night before he was executed, he gave an interview on national television in which he stated "[You are going to kill me and that will protect society from me. But there are millions of other people who are addicted to pornography and there is nothing you can do about that]"

But perhaps the main reason i am against it is that killing a murderer will not make the victim come back to life, but instead take another life which could be considered pointless.

Answer 2

Pro capital punishment.

"What I mean by hypocritical is that our country makes it illegal to murder someone yet the courts in many guilty verdicts will sentence the murderer to death, doing the exact same thing that he or she did."

Would be OK if we legalized murder? Sorry, just kidding, it is just the way the question was worded. I know what you mean. Just a little levity despite the serious question.

The difference is an individual decided to take a life for personal reasons. When we execute someone, we as a society have decided by jury of peers that society is best served by killing this person. It isn't vengeance. First, the person has shown no respect for life, so he has given up his privileges of belonging to society, even in prison. Second, this person won't be able to murder again.

BTW, good question, thank you for asking in respectful manner, we could use more of that from both sides.

Answer 3

Here are some facts that can help.

Innocence and DNA. Over 120 people on death row have been found to be innocent. In the overwhelming number of these cases the evidence of their innocence was not DNA. DNA is actually available in very few cases. It is human nature to make mistakes.

Life without parole. Means what it says. On the books in more and more states. It is no picnic- being locked up in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day with no hope of ever getting out.

Cost. It costs much more for a death penalty than for life without parole. Any much of the extra cost comes before the appeals even start. Instead of this, why not provide better funding for murder victims’ families.

Not a deterrent. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not.

Answer 4

I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons. The biggest reasons I oppose the death penalty are,

It is not a deterrant of crimes. Many people who are for the death penalty say it is needed to deter crime. Well statistics show that the states that use capital punshment actually have a higher rate of violent crime not lower so it's proving to have either a negative effect or none at all. Not to mention that most crimes that would constitute capital punishment in the US are crimes that are committed either in passion or by people who are actually stupid enough to think they can get away with it. If the criminal doesn't think about the future consequence then how can the prospect of death serve as a deterrent? The United States uses capital punishment as a deterrent and it doesn't work so maybe we should be re-thinking the deterrent we are using.

The second big reason I oppose the death penalty is it's permanent. First off we spend more money to put a criminal to death than we do to keep them in prison for life but even with all the money spent to keep innocent people from being put to death it still happens, has happened, and will happen again as long as the death penalty it allowed. If we throw someone in prison for life and later find evidence that they were not guilty of the crime they were accused of then we can at least give them the remainder of their life back, but if we kill them then we as Americans have committed murder of an innocent person. Even if we kill 1,000 people who are guilty it doesn't make up for the 1 life taken of the innocent. Even with all the precautions you could easily find cases of innocent people put to death in America with just a quick Google search.

There are other reasons I disagree with the death penalty including the double standard reason you pointed out in your question but I have listed my biggest two anyhow.

Answer 5

Meet one of these guys and really get to know the person. In Missouri, death row inmates have to have DNA testing. Life without parole to you and me may not sound like a picnic, but, to these men, it really doesn't matter too much, after awhile. They have all the food they want, they get money from their penfriends, some wear more expensive shoes than any of us walking around on the outside. Most have no conscience. The judges are getting easier and easier on crime. Read the full facts of a case. Just because someone says they are not guilty doesn't mean they aren't. As far as the expense of prosecuting a person, one can admit guilt then deny it then admit it then deny it again. And, the citizens continue to pay to defend them. I know of one in Missouri that has admitted murdering someone in Missouri, and more in other states (Arizona to name one). He is on death row and his wife has admitted she would be afraid if he were ever released. Yet, she tells him every move to make. He is now an editor of a magazine speaking out against the death penalty! She told him to say he is ashamed of what he did. She tells him not to smoke and how to wear his hair. But does she really want him out? NO! And why is that? She is afraid of what he might do. He has had cellies that have died from "unknown" causes. He has been caught doing things he shouldn't be doing, while in prison. And, we continue to support him. These murders were not his first offense. Look at some of the cases, and the brutality of them. The men that did these crimes aren't mourning and they don't really care. Get to know some of them and you'll hear all they bragging they do. Retaliation? So what. Call it whatever you want... but it's justice.

Answer 6

I will agree to be for it in some cases. With DNA technology today, we can feel more certain. However I recall the Gore/Bush debate in 2000, they both support it for the wrong reasons. It is not a deterrent. Many who commit such acts have no concept of their own mortality, or perhaps even care(kind of like the nuts we are dealing with in the Middle East)-it is simply pragmatic -they will not kill again since they are dead and gone.
I support however the appeals of some who were executed. So ,I do not think it must be arbitrarily administered.

I can say this. My father was murdered in 1992. In La, there was capital punishment only for those who had killed a peace officer. We were sure he would stay in for at least 30 years of his life sentence......then he appealed up to the Supreme court in 1998.....since there had been no black grand jurors in this parish chosen in a number of years..I like the dissention of Clarence Thomas.....I fail to see how this has any factor....in a case where a white man murders another white man......
Now this POS has been out living free for years..justice I doubt it.

I'll bet if ol'Charley Manson ever gets released(or any of those convicted in the Tate-LaBianca murders) they will not live to walk free for long.

Answer 7

No one disagrees that the Death Penalty has been misued, and abused in the past.

This is why, rather than take AWAY the harshest punishment..........what I advocate is stricter controls and tigher uses of this final puinishment.

In cases, where there is *any* doubt......convictions based on flimsy evidence........faulty eye witness testimony........etc.......then the Death penalty should NOT be an option.........and life in prison........to allow for appeals and lawyers reviews and all that.......so MAYBE they can win their freedom, if there has been some huge mistake.

But let's get real.........many of the people on Death row are NOT there by accident. ...or faulty tesitmony.

In cases where guilt HAS been clearly established.........you HAVE the right person..........Susan Smith, who rolled her car into a lake, with her kids still strapped into their seats........this Dylann Roof guy........the Boston Bomber.......caught after a shootout with police--------
The Batman Colorado shooter..........these cases......where there is 100% absolute proof positive you HAVE the right person, who has caused murders........ then , there needs to be the ultimate penalty for that.

Life in prison doesn't mean life. They are often paroled or can escape......or are giving time off for "good Behavior" in their cages.

Leslie Van Houton, a Charles Manson MURDERER....who took part in the TATE-LiBanca murders.........is now seeking parole.

her sentence was DEATH.......commuted to LIFE......when California then abolished the Death penalty .

Why should she be let out.......only because she behaved in her CAGE?

What mercy were her victims shown, as they begged for their lives???

Rapists who rape, sodomize and mutilate their Young victims........throwing them in a ditch to die..........what mercy should be shown?

trash is removed for a reason.

In these cases........the Death penalty is warranted, merited and earned.

And should be metered out, in the Assurance that you are saving future lives.....by taking out this trash.

Answer 8

I'm against for a very simple reason: there is no argument in favor of it!
All the arguments for it are usually around the theme: he doesn't deserve to live,... But that's an irrational argument. Indeed the right question to answer is: what good will it do to kill that guy? The rational behind a punishment is not vengeance, but to make the guilty person learn. Unfortunately, for death penalty, this is only vengeance. And vengeance is counter productive.

Answer 9

I really have a hard time with this question because with this my since of morality and the hypocritical nature of it all makes me me choose to be against it . The bible says thou shall not kill and I'm a firm believer in that . I kinda look at the death penalty like legalized murder. My mind began to think a little harder on this after the Oklahoma City bombing when they took so many lives and so many children who didn't even have a chance to live. Then 911 and so many others lives taken . It just doesn't seem fair for those who commit murder to get to live when they showed no mercy to those who they killed. Like i said I have very mixed feelings on this subject especially when we are taught by the bible to forgive, but does forgiveness mean sparing the lives of a killer or does it mean to pray for the soul of the damned? I know that you can't be for and against something at the same time, but at times I feel that way.

Answer 10

I, too, respect your opinion, and it's a logical one.

I believe, however, that in certain outstanding cases, the death penalty is appropriate.

Take a child molester, for instance. It can be argued that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. It can also be argued (not very well, given the statistics) that a child molester can be rehabilitated.

It cannot be argued, however, that if the sentence is carried out, the dirt bag won't get a second chance to destroy another child's life.

And, as a side note, I don't feel as though I should pay for the housing, food, clothing and medical expenses incurred by a murderer for the rest of his life.
A life sentence without a chance for parole is a very expensive burden on the taxpayers - and, in my opinion, a crime which justifies this sentence, equally justifies the death sentence. We are "taking" away a life either way.