do you agree or not with the death penalty?

Question

DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE AN EYE FOR AN EYE? WHY?

Answer 1

Yes. Killing criminals reduces crime rates. If a person knows he could possibly die for a crime he might commit, will he still do it? What about if he knows that he can't die as a punishment?

Answer 2

I think the question should not just be pro or con, but why, and ask people to refer to facts. Whatever you decide should be with common sense based on the facts. Takes more time, but the topic is really important. And just because people do not support the death penalty, it does not mean they excuse brutal acts by depraved individuals. These individuals need to be severely punished.

Here are some of the facts-

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 and for victims services which are always underfunded.

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

No. One death is too many. Why pay for a death with another death, is not one (or many as some have stated) enough, it is self serving and fruitless to seek another. An eye for an eye, no this too is self serving. We are righteous are we not, we are pious are we not, why then become unrighteous or unpious for personal revenge or to 'feel' good, what does this serve?

What then are the alternatives. This question itself is self serving, we are asking by this question what do we do so that we feel better, it is self serving. What is justice? It should be a method of change for the criminal's mind, anything else is self serving revenge.

What does killing the criminal do other than create another death on top of those already killed. It is a fallacy that it deters criminal activity, it does not do anything but create a death. It also does not address the victim's family suffering or recompense, they in fact lose both times.

What is the proper response? Do we ignore crime? Of course not. We need to address the problem of crime with the correct approach. I am no expert but perhaps we should be asking the criminal for access to his motivations and address the question using that insight. To me this would seem a logical start. We would be addressing the question from its root cause rather than the present method of reaction from personal revenge.

For the last 700 or so years we have killed and imprisoned many and there has been no change in the crimes committed. I think its time for a fundamental shift in our thinking.

Peace from a Buddhist

An eye for an eye, Death Penalty....no definitely not the correct method.

Answer 4

Three factors matter.

1. who did the killing.

2. circumstances in which the killing took place.

3. the motivation

The killing of any innocent, for the sole purpose of hate, self absorbtion and greed by a sane adult demands two things:

1. the victims family may demand blood money as they might be poor or have children who were dependant on the victim. in this case, there should be a concensus on how the murderer pays for the blood money. obviously he/she cannot do so if executed.

2. if the victims family does not request blood money and requests a death penatly as the consequence of taking a family members life. the court of law is responsible for providing that fairness to the families of the victim.

If the murder has been done, by a man who is self defending, the situation changes completely.

If a man has raped another, he should pay for it with the highest penalty the court and law can muster, given the condition that the victim also agrees on the penalty. Buying freedom with parole should not be an option.

There are many details to be considered.

Therefore one needs to study the conditions and formulate solutions for each case and culture.

Thank you

Edit: I forgot to mention my personal stance, if the ruling has considered all of the above and made the effort to uphold the fairness and rights of each individual including the murderer to have a clean, non painful death, then I have no reason to be against it. Life, is precious, but holding death penalties in right places means defending the preciousness of life by giving the message that those who do not respect life, will not get away with it.

Answer 5

Depends on who's applying it.

If Charles Manson is applying the death penalty at his whim, no, I don't believe in the death penalty.

If Hillary Clinton is applying the death penalty through some health care sceme, no I don't want any part of it.

Would you favor the death penalty if it were administered by Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao Tse Tung?

Until we return our nation to the terms of the Constitution for the united States of America, perhaps we should suspend the death penalty.
.

Answer 6

Yes I am for the death penalty for murderers and child rapists. What I am against are these people sitting in the jail for a decade and by the time they are put to death they are a changed person. If someone has been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt and given the verdict of death then they need to be put to death as soon as possible.

Answer 7

Pro death penalty. Pro choice.

Answer 8

YES YES YES.

God DEMANDS the death penalty for certain crimes. It is all through His Word. There are too many bleeding hearts today that cries and moans it's unfair. Well let something happen to their family like a murder or kidnapping and such and see then what they say. If anyone comes to my home and tries to harm my family I will save the State a lot of money and plant them at my doorstep. I do believe in God by the way for those who cannot handle the Truth. We have a right to take that kind of trash out and I support it to the full extent possible. Of course I would have to fight the ACLU for the rest of my life, right?

Answer 9

Yes I agree with it, but not because of the "eye for an eye". Criminals who are in for life cost tax payers an incredable amount of money, true so does actually getting a execution through, but that could be lowered. I also dont think that it's a good thing to allow some one to murder or commit violent crimes time and time again.

Answer 10

I do not agree with the death penalty. I feel that life is sacred. I feel that everyone has some good in them and there is always a chance of rehabilitation.

Answer 11

I used to be totally against the death penality, but over the tears I have come to the conclusion that if a crime is committed against a child (do we really need the gory details?) then the death penality should inacted on ASAP!