How do you feel about the death penalty?

Answer 1

I don't really feel one way or the other about it. It doesn't really matter to me. It is good for arguments, though.

Answer 2

Here are just a few facts about the death penalty. We should make up our minds about the death penalty using common sense based on the facts. Revenge does not answer the question.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. Homicide rates are higher in states that have the death than in states which do not have it. Most people who commit murder do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

The death penalty system costs much more than a system that does not have the death penalty. Much of these extra costs come way before the appeals begin. This money ought to be spent on crime prevention methods of proven value- including more and better trained police, and more sophisticated police methods.

Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. In the majority of these cases, the evidence was not DNA, which is not often available. More often, the problem is one of mistaken eyewitnesses. After an execution, the case is closed. If the wrong person was executed the real killer is still out there.

The death penalty is racially biased, but not in the way you may think. A defendent is twice as likely to face the death penalty if the victim was white than if the victim was non white.

More and more states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says and is no picnic to be locked up for 23 of 24 hours a day, with no hope of anything else.

The death penalty can be very hard on the families of murder victims. As the process goes on they are forced to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift and rarely appealed.

Answer 3

good question. I don't know I am like on the fence. I mean so far the death penalty has not deterred crime in any way, we are just as bad as before the death penalty, sometimes even worse. Also there have been casses that after the sentence was carried out, someone stepped forward and said "that man/woman was innocent of those crimes because I did it and feel bad that they took the punishement" so innocent people have been put to death. Also there is no chance for redemption once killed. Than there are those who welcome death and say so "A better place then here" the onion field killers said. It doesnt bring back those they killed etc. On the other hand I am not behind the fact that we have to feed, clothe, and provide shelter, recreation, and job skill classes for someone like Charles Manson so well it is a hard question to answer I guess in extreme casses or is it better to let them live with the guilt, some have none you know. I guess I am for it and against it. For it in extreme casses and against it as a deterrent because it isn't and one needs to be 100% sure of guilt not just a gut feeling or because one is so mad about the circumstances

Answer 4

I agree with An Eye For An Eye. Maybe that's a primitive way of looking at things, but that's my opinion. I do feel though, if someone is going to be executed, there should be 100% proof that the crime was committed by that person (DNA evidence). I think it's B.S. that someone was executed by lethan injection last week, and there was concern that it took too long to kill the convict. Was he thinking that when he slaughtered someone? I can bet that most people (not all, I realize) would be pro death penalty is their mother, father, child, whatever, was killed.

Answer 5

the main problem with a death penalty is that too often innocent persons are sentenced to death, either by over zealous prosecutors
or something like the forensic lab in Texas where the tecnicions testified to results of test which were never done, before the start of the innocence project there were over a hundred persons sentenced to death where were found to have actually been not guilty of anything at all. there have already been several people esecuted who were later found to have been not guilty so then we become as bad as those we are punishing.

Answer 6

I believe in the death penalty. God says an eye for an eye. We keep killers for years at millions of dollars cost to America. These people if set free would kill again with no thought to anyone. I think we keep people on death row tooooooooooo long. If you do the crime you must pay the price. Or we are sending the message do what you want we will house you and feed you the rest of your life and give you medical care. Most of the killers live better in jail than they ever did on the streets. Charles Manson is a prime example. He lives better in jail than he ever did out of jail. We have the laws lets enforce them.

Answer 7

I am not for it. I believe that there is still a possibility that an innocent person may be executed. I believe, instead, in life without parole for adults that have sex with children, anyone that intentianally kills someone, and for rape. They should also be sentenced to something like the supermax prison system, where they spend most of their time seclussion and get only 2 or three hours a week in the exercise area outside.

Answer 8

I'm very much for it. In fact, I think it should be MANDATORY for people who kill police officers in uniform or acting in the line of duty, and it should also be mandatory for premeditated murder. Other than that, it should always be an option as punishment when a person is convicted of willful manslaughter.

Here are some arguments against it, and my responses:

1. IT'S BARBARIC: Really? Injecting a needle in someone's arm and putting them to death quickly and painlessly is barbaric? How about blowing someone's brains out with a gun, or raping and strangling a woman, or stabbing someone 57 times with a knife? Who is the true barbarian -- the one that arbitrarily took someone else's life or the justice system that gave that person the due penalty for their crime?

2. MURDER IS ALWAYS WRONG: Uh-uh. Try again. Are you trying to tell me if someone came at you with a knife saying "I'm gonna slit your throat" and you had a gun you wouldn't use it? You'd just let that person slit your throat? Please. Self-defense, defense of family/loved ones, and taking someone's life within the scope of your duties as a law enforcement officer or military member (READ: WITHIN THE SCOPE, so you play by the rules of engagement) is justified.

3. AN EYE FOR AN EYE IS NOT JUSTICE: At a basic level that's true, but when you're talking about taking someone's life when you had no right to take it in the first place, the murderer has done more than just kill one person -- that murderer has permanently harmed every person who loved the victim. So justice in the case of murder is not so much for the person who was killed but for all the people that are now deprived of the victim's company because someone decided to play God and take that person's life.

4. IT DOESN'T SERVE SOCIETY'S INTERESTS IN JUSTICE: Dead wrong. It most certainly does serve society's interest in many ways. For starters, the friends and family members of the victim get justice for themselves as mentioned above. Secondly, it serves society's interest in deterring murder by providing a penalty that will make many people think twice about killing someone without just cause. Finally, it serves society's interest of justice by removing such a person from society instead of wasting countless thousands of taxpayer dollars per year to incarcertate murderers in the equivalent of a maximum-security Hilton where they are required BY FEDERAL LAW to have Internet access and cable TV -- and how is THIS construed to be justice when millions of law-abiding citizens can't even AFFORD cable TV or their own computer, let alone Internet access?!?!!

5. THE BIBLE SAYS "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." Well, if the people who keep bringing this up actually sat down and cracked a Bible open they would know that the same God the Father Almighty who gave the commandment against murder prescribed a penalty for those who broke it. "If a man taketh the life of another man, then by man shall his life be taken." Exodus 21:12.

BOTTOM LINE: People who commit acts or arbitrary murder present a clear and present danger to society as a whole. They have elevated themselves to the position of God and believe they have the right to decide whether another human being lives or dies. People like that need to be reminded of their mortality.

Answer 9

I think that the justice system takes waaayyy too long in meeting out punishments along this line. I am all for the death penalty, but I don't think a person should be able to string it along for 10-20 years with appeals. 5 years and then that's it...they should immediately be executed, not allowed to stay on death row for who knows how long wasting taxpayer resources.

I know it sounds kinda cold, but if somebody committed murder, then they shouldn't be able to say they are sorry and that's it.

Answer 10

I agree with it, however there has to be 100% proof that this person in question to be put to death. Anybody that molests or kills a child should be put to death. If you are on death a sentence you should only get ONE appeal, that's it. None of this b.s on sitting there for 25 years.

Answer 11

I think any country that executes its own citizens is violating its own laws against not killing.
I think any country that executes its own citizens teaches those citizens that killing is acceptable.
I think any country that executes its own citizens is barbaric and stupid.
I think there is no justification other than revenge for executions -- they cost more than life in prison terms, they're not a deterrent to future crime (both proven facts), so the only thing left is revenge.