What do you think of the death penalty?

Answer 1

If there is evidence such as DNA that proves the person did what he/she is being charged with and this crime carries the death sentence, then YES I do agree and support the death penalty As is said "an eye for an eye"

Answer 2

This is an open ended question. I oppose the death penalty because I do not believe it is an effective way to reduce or prevent crime. Here are some of the facts that have convinced me- all of them are sourced (see below.)

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison.

The death penalty risks executing innocent people (123 already exonerated) and DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. Most killers do not even think they will be caught (if they think at all). Homicide rates are higher in states with the death penalty.

Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Supermax prisons are terrible places to spend the rest of your life.

The death penalty can be very hard on families of murder victims.

The death penalty does not apply to the worst of the worst. It applies to defendants with the worst lawyers.

48% of Americans prefer life without parole and 47% prefer the death penalty. We are learning. Eye for an eye judgments may sound good but they do not make sense.

Answer 3

If a crime is so bad that the penalty is death then I would rather the person suffer in a prison for the rest of their life than be given the easy way out...death. I also believe he/she should work and earn their keep in the prison so the government does not have to pay for their keep. I think it is unfair for the tax payer to supply the basics for an individual who is imprisoned.
There is also the other way of looking at it ..someone could possibly have been accused of something to find they are innocent, the death penalty in this case could not possibly reverse the penalty.

Answer 4

The death penalty is around because of the following myths:

- It is an effective deterrent.
- It is more cost effective.
- It is the standard of the world.

The death penalty is still around because it is a popular political position. Study after study has shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. It is also much more expensive than life in prison because of all the legal costs associated with due process before the death. Nearly every advanced nation in the world has banned the practice as cruel and unusual punishment.

To much of the world, the United States appears to be a violent and barbaric country, in part because of the death penalty.

To me the most important reason not to apply the death penalty is the fact that our legal system is severely flawed. When DNA analysis became available and it was applied to past cases, many "death row" defendants were found to be innocent. Also, you can probably name several convicted murderers who went on to become productive/insightful authors from their jail cells.

It's less expensive, reversible, more honorable, and less barbaric to eliminate the death penalty. I'm surprised that politicians in this country still find it a popular position.

Answer 5

Death penalty is a must. The only thing which humans fear on this earth is death. So only death penalty can alone keep them off from making wrong deeds. So at least in papers it should compulsorily exist.

Answer 6

I believe it is hypocritical for people to suggest that it is immortal to kill people, while then condoning and even supporting state sanctioned killing at the same time. I find it very disturbing that whole societies can, with calm and calculation, agree to kill people. Crimes of passion almost seem forgiveable when compared to execution.

I believe that execution is more of an action of revenge and bloodlust than it is a form of punishment.

I believe that it is not a deterrant, because it is quite likely that people who would actually kill others are not thinking rationally to begin with, thus consequences don't matter to them at the time of the crime. Deterrants are sane consequences meant to keep sane people in line. They don't mean anything to those who are unstable.

I believe that it is an unexcusable risk that some innocent people may have been executed, and may still be executed.

I believe that no matter how much we want to punish someone, ending their existence is not a reasonable solution. It is a nullification, not an answer.

Answer 7

I believe that you can't remove death penalty from possible punishment, but it should be a last resort, or for the most extremely heinous crimes, with no doubt.

there have been too many instances of convicted people that have served many years in jail only to be found innocent years later. this shows there are still mistakes in the system

Answer 8

It is not used enough. I would take everyone on death row and everyone that is sentenced to life in prison, and put them to death within 3 years or 3 appeals, what ever came first. That would save our country a ton of money.

Answer 9

I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and from a money stand point it costs much more to execute a person then it does for a lifer. Additional security costs, automatic and several appeals. It is more a long and dragged out process then rotting in jail.

Answer 10

Appropriate in cases where the is no doubt of guilty. Should not be allowed to take 20 years of taxpayer money to defend though.