What do you think?

Question

Are you for or against the death penalty? Why or why not?

Answer 1

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people. Here are a few faq's with sources below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and can’t guarantee we won’t execute 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 and regions 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, mostly because of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, 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 not speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 2

Torture and 1st degree murder, especially of a child warrants the death penalty.
Some may argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and I would agree, I'm for it as the ultimate form of punishment.
I’m one of the most forgiving people I know but if you hurt my kid (or yours)-you should pay with your life.

Answer 3

I'm against it. The death penalty has not reduced the crime of murder. Also, innocent people can be put to death long before technology catches up to find out that he or she was innocent the whole time.

Answer 4

I'm for it for the most heinous of criminals, and only if there is almost 100% certainty of their guilt.

Why should tax payers support serial killers, child killers, cold blooded murderers, and terrorists.

I know libs would like to bring them home to baby sit their kids and serve them tea and biscuits, but I personally would not.

Also, career criminals should be locked up for good before they get a chance to earn the right to be executed.

That's what would happen if there was such a thing as a "justice system" and not just a "loop hole system."

Answer 5

For the wages of sin is death! Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. If anything, I say we are to humane in the way we execute criminals. I think that if we really wanted to teach them a lesson, we would make them suffer the same pain they made their victims endure, and also make them feel the pain and anguish they caused the families of thier victims. I wish we had the technology to do this. That would be a more fitting form of punishment, to make them suffer a living hell for the rest of their mortal existance.

Answer 6

i am for it with , strong safe checks but a speedy process.

there are just some things done by a individual that shows they do not belong on the earth with other people

Answer 7

with

Answer 8

no an eye for an eye...