death penalty survey?

Question

yes, no, or undecided.
Do you support the death penalty? Does the death penalty deter crime? Is the death penalty carried out fairly? Does the death penalty cost too much money? Is it "cruel and unusual punishment" to keep innocent people on death row for years? Please, also include one statement emphasizing an opinion regarding the death penalty. Thanks!

Answer 1

1. No (with a few reservations admittedly)

2. My gut feeling is no, I doubt people who commit murder are thinking about dying vs. life in prison at that moment. I certainly would be open to statistics one way or the other. I think any statistics here (in the U.S.) don't prove anything one way or the other because we've practiced the same thing (Capital punishment ONLY after numerous years and appeals to people who cannot afford a good lawyer) for so long.

3. NO. O.J. Simpson would have NEVER been given it, even had he been found guilty for example.

4. Definitely! Endless appeal after appeal. Not that it HAS to be that way.

5.. Certainly not Unusual. I wouldn't say cruel either. Of course, that all depends on how the courts define it, Not I.

6. My biggest problem (and the reason that I am against it) is it is possible (and has happened NUMEROUS times) to take the life of a person who DID NOT commit the crime. And that ONE LIFE is not worth killing the other 10,000 (or whatever the number may be).

Answer 2

Yes I support the death penalty because I believe it is a deterent. I think that lethal injection is the least cruel way and I believe trials should be quicker and people should not be kept on death row a long time. With dna testing there should be far less innocents getting time at all than before so it should help no one be put to death for something they did not do.
I believe that all serial killers and serial rapists should get the death penalty whether they are crazy or not. Basically I believe insanity should not be allowed as a defense because we cannot have murderous crazy people running around in society and many criminals have some type of insanity.

Answer 3

No I don't support the death penalty. It doesn't deter crime. It's not carried out fairly because the government just wants to keep the persons full to provide a source of cheap labor that it can no longer get with out having to out source. No because for the most part all though they have limits and restrictions they aren't really suffering as much as they should be.

Personally I don't believe the death penalty solves anything. People are imprisoned, most likely tortured, and they get to live while others have to struggle to survive with the pain that they've caused them. I believe (now this is just my opinion) they should offer a system where people are giving actual forms of torture as an option. Would you rather spend 20 years in jail over something you did or would you rather have lose your hand.
Most people would take the loss of the hand ( EXAMPLE). At least after that they would most likely never commit the crime again (unless they are insane) and they can attempt to redeem themselves in society. And the wronged party would feel as though justice might have actually been served. Almost all parties (except maybe the lucrative penal system) would prosper in the long run.

But that's just my opinion.

Answer 4

Do you support the death penalty? No.

Does the death penalty deter crime? No.

Is the death penalty carried out fairly? No.

Does the death penalty cost too much money? Yes.

Is it "cruel and unusual punishment" to keep innocent people on death row for years? Yes.

Please, also include one statement emphasizing an opinion regarding the death penalty. Thanks!

Answer 5

Rather than emphasize opinion, I think people need to talk about the hard facts.

Here are a few-

The death penalty is not a deterrent. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that don't have the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life without parole, a lot of this expense coming at the very beginning of a case, before and during trial. The difference is significant. (Why not spend the extra money where there is need, such as on programs to assist victims.)

Over 120 people have been released from death row, after many years, with evidence of their innocence. DNA has gotten the most press, but in most of these cases, the evidence was something else. It is human nature to make mistakes. These cases required many appeals before evidence of innocence was even admitted into court.

Fairness- on race. Not as you would think. It's about the race of the victim. In cases where the murder victim was white, the death penalty is twice as likely to be sought than if the victim was non white.

Life without parole is available in more and more states. It means what it says.

The death penalty can be very hard on victims families. There ordeal goes on and on, in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift and rarely appealed.

Opposing the death penalty is common sense, based on knowing the facts and does not mean you excuse brutal acts. The people who commit them should be severely punished.

Answer 6

I do support the death penalty. I dont think it deters crime though. I think it is carried out fairly in the US, other countries can be extreme. It is cruel to keep innocent people on death row for years, but that has nothing to do with the death penalty itself. That is our justice system that needs repair.

The death penalty needs to exist to take care of the sickos out there that will never change.

Answer 7

I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty. I think a person who committed a crime which could be penalized with the death penalty is more likely to hurt a lot more people while the person is on the run.

I think that the death penalty should be reserved for mass murderers like Saddam Hussein and bin Laden.

Answer 8

1-Yes to the death penalty.
2-It "might" deter crime, if the punishment was carried out within 24 hours of the order.
3-Who cares if its fair or not, death is death.
4-A rope and a tree, does not cost much, the tree is already there and the rope can be reused.
5-Its cruel and unusual punishment for the victims and their families to keep these dirtbags on death row for years.
If a person is sentenced to death, do it with 24 hours instead of years, think of the money that could be saved and used for the betterment of people, instead of dirtbags.

Answer 9

Cain killed his brother and whined to God that now people might not like him any more. God protected him and soon the earth was so violent that the whole world terminated in a flood.

After the flood God said that whoever killed, would be killed. Later Moses put some boundaries and stipulations on it. Gov't took over the justice part of it so families wouldn't have to avenge or defend their own. Penalties were executed immediately. There were no jails. Just "cities of refuge" for people who felt they had been falsely accused.

Jesus was pretty matter of fact about things. He told Peter to put up his sword because who lives by the sword dies by the sword. God said that He is coming back to "destroy them that destroy the earth." He said He would reward "every man according as his work Shall Be."

Predators tend to be much more persistent than the rest of us. People who intentionally put other people in mortal danger should be stopped, will all be stopped eventually.

Answer 10

The question is tremendously deceptive. it is not approximately abolishing loss of life penalty yet to alter the way we administer it. meaning, loss of life penalty maintains to be and how it is going to be mete out may well be counted on a case-with tips from-case foundation. If we understand this, then all of us understand the respond must verify we ought to constantly exchange the way the way it is going to be administered; and no we ought to constantly no longer abolish it because it is an efficient deterrent to those questioning of committing a severe offence in Singapore. no longer attempting to be a saint right here or play hero, yet human beings do deserve a 2d threat. notwithstanding, no remember if or no longer they deserve it or no longer is an exceedingly subjective remember. i might think of that the present device makes it greater hassle-free for the choose. You do something incorrect and deserve a loss of life penalty they administer it. in case you alter the way it is going to be achieved. Then, inconsistencies and issues could upward push up. So, the present device is working and it is giving the choose much less discomfort so keep it. in this occasion, the Msian guy, does he relatively deserve a loss of life sentence, based on the info accrued? particular? notwithstanding, can the regulation shows some humanity? provide him yet another threat? particular, the president of Singapore can do this. So there is an street to pardon a loss of life penalty and it lies on the hand of our President. So in case you look from that perspective, the loss of life row prisoner does have a final street to stay alive. It relies upon on the President. So, to all...purely stay good and be spectacular. Dont flout the regulation, I advise severe ones. otherwise your existence would be on a putting loop....