death penalty?

Question

wrong or right?

Answer 1

Right. Killing a person can't be justified. Today, people don't often the death penalty, although in some cases the murderer is truly repentant. But generally they are not and get therapy instead.

Answer 2

Although you asked this in polls and surveys, the question is much too important for sound bites and quick slogans. Some info about how the system is actually implemented, with sources below:

Risks of executing innocent people-
124 people on death rows released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides- not a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't 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 and regions that have it than in states that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is on the books in 48 states. It means exactly what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't apply to people with money. Its not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 3

Not a real big fan of the electric chair. It really should be the Electric couch.....3 at a time baby! ZZzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaap!

Actually, the electric chair does seem kind of barbaric where lethal injection seems to be the execution of choice, but then again.... some of these people's crimes are so heinous maybe it's what they deserve.

So in my rather long winded way... I am all for the death penalty.
The problem is they say it's not really a deterrent, but since anyone who goes to death row never really gets executed anymore due to bleeding heart liberals, lawyers and the whole appeal process.... the whole point is moot right now anyway.

Answer 4

Right.

If you take another life or are dangerous you must receive the death penalty.

Answer 5

I'm torn on this one. I think it would be better to use the death penalty then to have the prisons overcrowd and murders, rapists, etc running all over the place. But on the other hand if they were by some chance to kill an innocent man, or what if that person being killed was someone close to you. So I'm undecided.

Answer 6

it depends on the crime... i mean if it's a murderer and if u have actual proof that he/she killed someone the death penalty is nothing! i mean common in the States (i'm Canadian) basically u die by injection.... i haven't heard of any other way that they do it... so basically the murderer kills someone and their victim(s) dies in the most horrific/ painful way possible and WHEN the suspect gets caught he has to wait so many years before actually receiving the death penalty, and when he does u can pretty much say that it is quick and painless- so finally to make my point clear depending on the crime, the criminal deserves to suffer just like they made their victim suffer!

Answer 7

Wrong. If you imprison a 'doer of evil' for the rest of his life, he must live in a small room and be 'locked up' and searched regularly ... if you kill him ... he's dead. I believe in God and Heaven, and I also believe in Hell (not the Hell you might expect, though) but once a person is 'dead' he is not LIVING and doesn't have to remember what he did 'wrong.'
Wrong ... what if a person was convicted of a crime and put to death, but evidence came to light later that he was not guilty of that crome ... he'd still be dead, and couldn't get out of jail to do anything good (or bad) again ...
Either way, the death penalty is just WRONG.

Answer 8

Its a touchy situation. On one hand, it would make sense that for some crimes, like first-degree murder, or in particularly vicious cases that a death penalty is fitting, but on the other hand should people be able to decide to take lives ever, even in situations like that, or is it just as wrong as what the criminal did? My personal stance on the death penalty is that there are certain criminals that have shown such a level of sadism and such a lack of remorse for their crimes that they deserve to have their lives taken from them just as they took lives of others. But I think it should be saved for only the most extreme of cases.

Answer 9

I'd be all for the death penalty if it wasn't for the fact that innocent people can be falsely convicted and killed.

It isn't worth sacrificing innocent life for the sake of punishing the guilty.

Answer 10

Right all the way....I know this sounds awful but when they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt and have been tried by a jury of their peers...they should be executed right away....I think they should bring back the gallos and public execution...it would bring a lot of crime to a screeching halt if they saw that they would actually be punished for their crimes.