Do you believe in the death penalty? Support your answers?

Question

for those of you who do not believe in the death penalty, what would you believe in , if it were a loved one who was brutily murdered. If some one were to murder a child or a loved one, I would believe in it.

Wow, a lot of you have really good points supporting what you believe in. For those of you who do believe in the death penalty, what in your opinion, do you feel is the humane way to execute someone? Thank you guys for all of your inputs.

Answer 1

I do not support the death penalty because it is not an effective way to prevent crime or to keep us safe. This is an issue that should be decided with solid facts. Long answer, important topic. Here are a few of the facts, all verifiable and sourced.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Many had already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person we are not likely to find that out and, also, the real criminal is still out there.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Appeals
Our appeals system is designed to make sure that the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn’t 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.) Two answers, by patriot07 and kevin_450, are confused about deterrence. "Deterrence" means persuading other people not to commit the crime someone else was punished for, while "incapacitation" means the criminal will not be able to commit his crime again. Life without parole does incapacitate a criminal.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime. EZMZ and 4everamusedw/humanity are confused on this.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t 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
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.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not revenge and an eye for an eye mentality.

Answer 2

Yes, I do believe in the death penalty; to a certain extent.

I don't think that the death penalty is "absolute" in the sense that if you do this crime, you die. I DO think that the circumstances definitely come into play, and I think one has to look at the criminal history of the criminal, as well as the chance of rehabilitation. Are they going to become productive members of soceity? Can they improve themselves and be productive inside the prison system? If the answer is no, then maybe the death penalty is the best thing.

I DON'T think that anyone under the age of 18 should EVER be sentenced to death. A teen - no matter how much people would like to think different - doesn't rationalize the same way an adult does. That is evident in the way they think on "dangerous" things. They feel that "I won't die" or "Nothing will happen to me". It is irrational and basically not looking at the consequences in the proper way. They don't look at consequences of the death penalty when they commit murder. Should they? Yes - taking a life is not right. But they react to emotion with action - not emotion. It is fine to say "I'm so pissed at you that I want to kill you!" but to act on that rage is another thing. Adults can typically rationalize that it is not the right thing to do. Kids don't, and therefore should not be held to the same sort of standards.

I feel that a criminal should be looked at in more ways than just the crime at hand. Let's face it - there are just some criminals that will NEVER contribute to soceity. All they are going to be is criminals, and all they learn in prison is how to be better/bigger/tougher criminals. I don't think they should get to retain their lives because they are obviously not respectful of life in general. They didn't respect the life of the victim they killed, and they obviously don't respect their life because they have made nothing of themselves. Respecting life is more than just allowing someone to live. It is living to the fullest and knowing that it is a privilege given to each person - not just a sentence.

Answer 3

People in America know that when they commit a crime they won't get the death penalty. that they can live for years on death row and possibly get out on parole. I feel the death penalty should be in every state. And if the courts have DNA showing without a doubt that this person committed the crime. They should be put to death within the next month. Instead of being on death row for years to come taking up our tax dollars feeding them and housing them. That would save our state so much money and time.

Answer 4

I am against the death penalty. Our system is called the "justice system" not the retribution system. A family may be angry at a person that commited a heinous crime against a loved one, but that does not justify killing another person. That is revenge, not justice. There is much empirical evidence against the death penalty. First, the penalty is exacted on a much higher percentage of blacks than whites. Most capital murders are poor and not well represented. Second, juries sometimes convict criminals on a shocking crime with little physical evidence. This is evidenced by the alarming number of death row inmates freed by DNA evidence. 10 of 12 States with the lowest murder rate do not have the death penalty.

However, the greatest argument against the death penalty is it cheapens our society and our views on precious life. Every member of our society is responsible for the death. Justice Louis E. Brandeis, in the Olmstead decision called the Government the parens parenti of its people. He explained: "Government is a teacher, for good or for bad, but government should set the example. I do not believe that government engaging in violence or retribution is the right example. You don't solve violence by committing violence."

Justice Brandeis was speaking of the big picture. This is democratic justice, or justice for the whole.

Dr. Martin Luther King said:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction…. The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

His single stance against violence was so logical, it resulted in the majority of Civil Right Acts passed in this country.

Answer 5

Yes, I believe in the Death Penalty. There's proof of it in the paper every day. What I don't believe in is Santa Claus. That fat man would be hunted down and shot for all of the copyright violations.

Answer 6

It costs taxpayers more money to keep these miserable wretches alive than the average person earns. Prisons are becoming waaaaaaaaaay overcrowded and my tax bracket is way too high----I'm sick of paying to have baby sitters for this scum. Let's clear out all the death rows FAST.
------YES---------- believe in the death penalty-----had a good friend that was brutally raped before being beat to death.-------FRY HIM

Answer 7

Yes I do, and furthermore I think that there should be a more broad field this covers. Yea of course murder but I think that any crime committed towards another person that cannot be replaced should be coverd by this as well, such as rape, molestation, etc. Why should I take care of these individuals with my tax dollars after they proved to be the worse of the worse in our sociaty. I think that I would rather kill them and give that money to welfare and to people who need it, not scum.

Answer 8

Yes. The more murderers we put to death the less of our tax dollars will have to support them. Also, if the evidence against them was air-tight and there was no police or prosecutorial misconduct, yes- put the dirt bag out of society's misery.

Answer 9

yes, but i only think it should be applied to cases with smoking gun evidence like a confession, dna, or video. i don't think scott peterson should've gotten the death penalty, since it was all circumstantial evidence.

Answer 10

I believe it is wrong to kill, except in defense of yourself or others.

Who are we defending when we kill a man in shackles strapped to a chair?

So no, I do not support the death penalty.