Do you believe in the Death Penalty, or like me believe that any country that has it is backward and medieval?

Question

Ok ok,here's more to the point for those who are for it. If any of your family of loved ones committed a crime which deserves the Death Penalty, who you say "Yes I am for it here is my family member" and lets be truthful about this, do everything in your power to protect them from it

Answer 1

This issue should be decided on the basis of solid facts and common sense. I’ve listed a few facts, all verifiable and sourced. Also, some of the answers you have received are mistaken.

Re: cost (Kevin A is wrong about this one.)
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial; pre trial investigations more complicated, pre trial motions more numerous, harder to select a jury, two stage trials with separate sets of witnesses. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person. (180 changes overlooks this one.)
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having 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 the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It’s not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Deterrence (Dixie58 overlooks this one.)
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.)

Re: Alternatives (susancnw should look at this one.)
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. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

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 or an eye for an eye mentality.

Answer 2

I don't believe the death penalty is appropriate, but I don't think advocates of the death penalty are backward or medieval.

Why don't I support the death penalty? There are many reasons:

I'll just list some:

The state shouldn't be granted the power of life or death over its citizens. If the state has the power of the death penalty, it often leads to other horrible things (e.g. torture). That is probably one reason many of the former Warsaw pact nations eliminated the death penalty with the downfall of the Soviet Union. When apartheid was abolished in South Africa, so was the death penalty.

Here's another reason:

Often a reason given for supporting the death penalty is for the victim's family to get some closure. But doesn't the prisoner's family have a family too? I have also met and spoken with victim's families who did not support the death penalty for the person who killed their loved one.

With life without parole it is possible for society to be protected from the convicted murderer.

Answer 3

I definitely believe in the death penalty. I also believe that many criminals who deserve to undergo it for the unspeakable crimes they've committed never will.

If having the death penalty is medieval, I'd rather live in a society like that than somewhere where people are allowed to get away with what they do "because it's too inhumane otherwise".

Answer 4

You really need to rephrase your question...this is a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of thing where the only answers you get are going to be bad ones. But, just in case you're curious, let me ask you a similar question: is there *anyone* in world history who needed to die either as a punishment or to keep the rest of the world safe? Would Hitler have deserved the death penalty? Pol Pot? Stalin? If not, are you willing to accept the responsibilities for what these people do while they're still around? It's not that easy of a choice.

Answer 5

Bad Ichi. What is your source that an innocent person was ever executed? People have been trying to prove that point for years and have yet to do so.

If you execute someone, chances are they will not get out and do it again. Kenneth McDuff is a great example of it. Death penalty was overturned in the 70s by the SCOTUS, he served his time, was released and turned around and killed about a half dozen women. They never did get an accurate count.

Bible does endorse the death penalty. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murderers. It is speaking of INNOCENT people. Death penalty in OT times varied from stoning to my particular fave...if the victime had no family to speak up for them, the murderer was tied face to face with the body of his victim and sent out into the desert. If he was lucky, he died sbefore he went mad. Otherwise disease, thirst killed him. Sometime he went mad first.

Answer 6

I don't support capital punishment. Certainly the framers of the Constitution believed it to be an appropriate punishment in some cases since they stated that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That indicates that so long as due process is provided, one may be deprived of life.

My objections are more that it is not a good deterent to crime, and it seems to be more retribution oriented than anything else. Retribution is not a wothy objective. Reducing crime, removing the offender from the populace, and deterring others are worthy objectives, all of which can be accomplished without capital punishment.

Answer 7

The death penalty has not solved anything in overtwo thousand years so why would it start now that people are even more educated and sophisticated. All that it teaches is that to kill is honourable under the right circumstances and most that murder feel that they have that reason at stake. There have been many innocent people put to death and the fact remains that those who are poor and marginalized cannot afford the proper legal representation where the wealthy can and often are declared innocent because of this.
The justice system is not an exact science in fact it is not even close. There are far to many variables that make it more like a crap shoot then anything trusted and true.

Answer 8

My view is that it is an extremely rare person that does a hieneous crime that is not somehow affected by drugs or alcohol. Very rare. For those that do something like murder while stone cold sober should just be put into the military. The military will be able to handle them.

The death penalty is inefficient and also doesn't address the real issues of crime: substance abuse.

Answer 9

Sorry fritz but I disagree. It was the fact I would sit in an electric chair that kept me from killing the christians that started the fight at my sons funeral. Those that committ crimes that would involve them being executed know the consquensencs of their actions and to prolong it with all the appeals are and insult to the family members to those of the victim. I disagree with you in the most trmendous way. I personally feel the ones executed have it to easy. From the crimes I read they committed they have it sssoooo easy it's shamefull, even to modernday thinking. Medieval was a good try but not good enough from this point of view. Thank you for your question fritz, it was a good one and I hope you keep trying, who knows you might say something that will change our minds someday.

Answer 10

I believe in the death penalty. I also don't care if you think the US is backwards and medieval. I think anyone like the creep in FL that buried a little girl alive after sexually assaulting her deserves to die and he doesn't deserve to sit around for the next 15 years appealing his conviction, at my and every other taxpayers, expense. He should be executed on the day the verdict is handed out.