Do you believe in the Death Penalty?

Question

Personally I don't believe in it, but if someone raped my child or mother, and murdered them, well...

Circuimstances can persuade us.

Minister, I absolutely disagree with you on the execution of Sadam Hussein. There was no such thing as a war crime until after the 2nd world war, when the Nuremberg trials had been introduced to punish (even soldiers) people who had engaged in acts against humanity, but all wars have acts against humanity. Harry Trueman dropped 2 atom bombs in Japan, and the US is involved in wars all over this planet. They cannot be exonerated for crimes against humanity. Should Nixon, Trueman, Reagan, and Bush have received death penalties? And I think the world would be a happier place and more stable has Sadam been left alone to govern in his own country. It is evident the world would be a safer place if Bush were executed.

Please remember, it was the USA who began putting people on trial in post war situations for war crimes, yet I have not seen any leaders from that country on a charge. Though poor Bill was impeached for smoking a cigar, and that was as bad as it got.

Answer 1

No I do not. I don't know whether you just want opinions or whether you are looking for the facts. Here are answers to some of the questions often asked about the death penalty. The sources are listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison. Extra costs include those due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

What about the very worst crimes?
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??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Many of the 124 innocent people released from death row had already been there for over 2 decades. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole.

Answer 2

Yes. Capital punishment exists in any moral society because the society wishes to remain moral. The death penalty is society's wreaking of vengeance upon vicious wrongdoers who have willfully and illegally taken the life of another or performed some other heinous act. Morality requires justice FOR ALL. To allow the vicious criminal to live is to ignore the rights of the family members and friends of the victim, and of society as a whole. To not execute is immoral. That being said, an execution must be carried out in the most painless, humane methods possible. By this, society as a whole avenges the crime, the indignation of the crime is legally resolved, and the decency and mercifulness of the society is maintained.

Simply put, if society does not execute first degree murderers for instance, then society is telling those who were close to the victims as well as to itself, "Oh, well. This crime isn't THAT bad."

Answer 3

It is not the best answer nor the most desirable way to deal with things, but a necessity nonetheless.

Why would we want to keep someone in prison who has shown no regret and would commit the same violent crime? It is sad, but such lives must be extiguished. Sadam Hussein is one example - he would never see the light of day, costing taxpayers a fortune to feed, house, entertain and clothe him. His ideals were warped, violent and he would never compromise or change. The earth is better off and safer without him. Other people of the same or similar mindset, bent on killing people because of ideals should also be removed from this earth.

We should not pay for their living and to do brain surgery would be considered cruel. So, the alternative is to eliminate. It is not ideal according to how we feel or the way we think life should be, but it is necessary.

Answer 4

Yes. in a world of justice, those who knowingly do wrong like Ian huntley etc. Why spend money keeping them alive when they are not getting released ever ?
We wil not have a perfect justice system until god's kingdom hits the earth rpoper like the bible promises.

Answer 5

Yes, anything that reduces the number of people on this planet is a good thing.

Answer 6

In an unjust society the Death Penalty is wrong!
In a just society is not needed!

Answer 7

Yes.
Those that are executed by the state, have earned that distinct reward.
Even the Bible says to be in fear of the authorities, because they have the power to punish.

Answer 8

No. I do not think that it is morally acceptable for the state to murder another human being. It's a bit hypocritical: You killed somebody and that's wrong, so we're going to kill you. Furthermore, it's less expensive to imprison them for life, and it doesn't stop similar crime.

Answer 9

Yes, no doubts about it.

Answer 10

ummmm . . . generally no. But you're right circumstances can pursuade us.