should capital punishment be abolished?

Answer 1

Yes! Just as soon as the “premeditated murdering” stops, we can end the death penalty; because as soon as that occurs, we won’t need the death penalty any longer.

Thousands of years before the Law was given to Moses and the Jews, God spoke to Noah and the other seven people who survived the flood (when God saw fit to execute capital punishment on the bulk of humanity for its continual and excessive violence). God clearly instructs the new inhabitants of the earth with the following words,

“...And to each man too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God mad man.” (Gen. 9:5-6)

“An eye for eye” is a part of the Law of Moses. It is an idiom meaning, not to punish the offender with a greater punishment than is appropriate to the case. In other words, the law of God is never to be used for the sake of revenge. (This is why death by torture is not appropriate for ‘punishment’s sake’). For example, if a man attacks you, let’s say in the course of a robbery, and in doing so, causes you to lose your right hand. That criminal will be subject to also lose his right hand (whether he intended for you to lose yours or not). In addition, he would be responsible for an economic penalty for the money he stole. The ‘Eye for an eye’ concept does not always apply to killing someone because it is possible to kill someone completely by accident or through unintended but, negligent means (i.e. manslaughter) or finally, by premeditated means (i.e. 1st degree murder). Only in the case of premeditated murder was the death penalty called for (with regard to taking a human life), making a person’s motive the deciding factor, just as it is embedded in our law today.

For this reason, I’m not in favor of the death penalty as it is used in places, such as China, where persons found guilty of extraordinary embezzlement, corruption or even major drug dealers may face a firing squad. Nor, do I believe sexual deviants or rapists should face the death penalty (although society needs better protection from them than they are getting now).

Premeditated murderers, who have received a fair trial, should be promptly executed (not tortured).

Answer 2

Some of your answers are based on mistakes and misinformation. This is an issue that needs to be considered in the light of verifiable facts. Here are a few.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than lifetime incarceration. (Example- New York State statistics- 7 people sentenced to death since 1995, cost over 200 million dollars. None had more than one appeal, 3 had not yet had any. Annual cost to imprison someone in NY $35,000. Do the math.)

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Re: DNA
DNA evidence is available in no more than 20% of all murder cases. It is no guarantee that we will never execute an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.

Re: speed
If we speed the process we are bound to execute an innocent person.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: Alternatives
More and more states have life without parole on the books. Life without parole means what it says and is no picnic.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty is not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
People should know that the death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean a person condones brutal crimes or excuses the people who commit them. I believe that the dialogue on the death penalty should be based on verifiable facts. People should make up their minds using common sense not revenge.

Answer 3

If it's going to continue to be administered the way it is today, yes because punishment is supposed to be a deterrant to crime and putting one of these murderers down the same way that you'd have a sick favored pet put to sleep can't be a deterrant to anything.

How is keeping someone on death row for 20 years worth of appeals and then putting them to sleep going to convince the next would-be murderer that he should think twice before taking a life?

I think I'd rather see natural life sentences at hard labor with no creature comforts and no visitors.

Answer 4

The answer is NO...IN fact child molestors should be put to death more.The very first time they commit this unfathomable act of violence and cowardness towards a child...I'd go one step further and allow public stonings of these monsters to be carried out in the neighborhoods of which they stalk.....

Okay now I need a more cheery question :P I do beleive that though..For haneous crimes we have to think of the victims rights and families so I urge people to really put themselves in the shoes of the victim and then decide is capital punishment worthy of such a crime? As a juror I'd have no problem putting a rapist/murderer child molestor to death....Because for every child molestor wasting tax payer money in jail right now or being released on parole there is a family who has had their lives turned upside down and inside out...

Answer 5

Murderers should be abolished. If there had been no murders there would be no no need for capital punishment.

Answer 6

lets see....a serial killer continues to murder 10+ kids that evidence links him to which means probably twice that.
A child molestor abducts little kids, and does terrible things to him, gets caught serves time then is released and does it again.
Hmm...Would you still want that person to be kept alive if after he does his prison term, he moved in your neighborhood?

any person who kills multiple people people should by default get the death penalty if convicted. Plain and simple
This would discourage others from doing the same, and if it didnt discourage others knowing the fate that will come to you, then it shows you dont care enough about your own fate, let alone have regard for other peoples lives--so again you prove you deserve to die.

All these stop the death penalty people make me sick.
Because if these killers were released from prison and moved next to their homes, and killed one of their little kids -- I wonder if that would spark a change of heart from them?
Well, wake up idiots, that happens all the time


And another thing.
Lets fill our prisons to capacity until we are forced to release people that get off serving half their sentences which shows just how lenient our judicial systemj is, that only encourages more behavior.
Case in point, how many convicts return when released?

12,000 to keep a serial killer who would kill again alive, every year, when that could be put to help a homeless person, or a poor single mothered family who wants a job.
What kind of country do you want death penalty opposers?
As long as its not in your back yard right?

Answer 7

No it should be instated in more states and bring back sparky. Why is it that we don't want to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on people who obviously showed no concern for that when they killed their victims.

Why is it they are allowed to live on death row for 20 years in appeals when their victims had moments and didn't get a last meal, or to say goodbye to anyone.

Although I do not agree with a lot of thing in Iraq I did like that Sadam was convicted and within 30 days was dead. Found guilty! Die for your crimes!

We could learn from that.

Answer 8

There are some crimes so heinous that death is the only fitting punishment. Also what do you do with a lifer who kills a guard or two?

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

Yes, I find it kind of unnerving that an eye for an eye administered by the state can be so flawed that they find many that were convicted without warrant. It is barbaric and wrong in my eyes, and puts the U.S. on a par with such country's as Iran, Iraq, and China. Somehow I wish we wasn't compared to that crowd.