what is you position on the death penalty?

Question

Are you for or against it? why?

Answer 1

killing is wrong. (Abortion only in the cases of incest, rape or harm to the mother)
The problem is innocent people are released from death row all the time, and it is obvious that we have executed innocent people, so who avenges their murders? If you want further reason against the death penalty:
Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment. It is actually more expensive to kill someone. With at least 2 lawyers mandatory for most death penalty case, and appeals that go for years it becomes more expensive to kill someone than keep them in prison. Also, every month you see people exonerated by DNA evidence and they were on death row. Statistics show that 10% of inmates on death row are innocent, and leads you to believe that we have therefore executed innocent people. There is in all states "Life without the possibility of Parole" which means that inmate will NEVER interact with society again. IF there is even the possiblity of killing an innocent person, don't you think that is grounds enough for a moratorium on the death Penalty? And are we to teach people it is wrong to kill by killing people? Taking a life is taking a life, regardless of what "title" someones carries who commits the murder. And the part I love about the people who answer this questions is those who support the death penalty and are screaming for someone to be killed, hoping and wishing for another persons death, "its wrong to kill so we must kill them!"..that is absolutely rediculous. It also strikes me as amusing that the so called "Pro-Lifers" who picket abortion clinics (and sometime s blow them up and kill doctors and nurses) and say abortion is wrong are usually the people screaming for someone to be put to death.

its funny reading these posts, - People don't appreciate the gravity of what they say until someone they know is wrongly convicted, or even a family member. I bet you'd change your tune then..

EDIT-Ken K. -They did used to do all of that stuff you want to do somewhere else. it was in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust-Way to go-you are a great asset to humanity!

Answer 2

You question is much too important for slogans and sound bites. 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. Sources below.

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t 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 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.

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 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?

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

I'm against it. I don't believe any human being has the right to kill another human being Many prisoners have been proved innocent when new technology/information becomes available ( you can release an innocent from prison, not from death )....Not to mention the fact that it cost's us taxpayers more to put someone on death row than it does to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives ( the mandatory appeals are expensive ).

Answer 4

I am for it. I think when a person commits multiple murders they need to be removed from society permanently to keep the innocent safe. I know many argue that it's not a deterrent, but someone who is not deterred by the thought of losing their own life can't be rehabilitated. The death penalty isn't carried out often enough, quickly enough of consistently enough to serve as a deterrent anyhow.

Answer 5

i'm for the death penalty. what needs to happen to eliminate the over crowding of our prisons is to put to the death all those who are on death row to death. yes they have to right to appeal their case but only up to say 3 times or 10 years. if nothing changes after that OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

Im For It, Straight Up It Is A Deterent To Killing Even Though It Creates Two Deaths.

Answer 7

I am for it...especially in the case of serial killers, child molesters, and the like. Endless appeals are ridiculous. Yes...there may be occasionally an innocent person wrongly convicted and there needs to be more thorough investigations, fairer trials, etc. But when a person is beyond a doubt guilty, buhbye. And this whole thing lately about whether or not the executions are humane...that's a bunch of BS. Did these killers, child molesters, etc. stop to think whether they were 'humanely' killing or torturing their victims? Why should we allow them to die humanely when they certainly didn't allow their victims to die humanely. Let the bastards suffer, excruciatingly if need be.

Answer 8

For it! In fact, I think it should be used for more crimes. Execution is much cheaper that keeping someone in prison for a few decades (though most executees spend decades on death row anyway- I think that needs to change). Most prisons are overcrowded, and taxpayers are spending millions if not billions of dollars each year paying for food, healthcare, and housing for prisoners who are serving life sentences. I think that all murderers should be executed, also rape and sexual assault should be punishable by death. Any sexual crime against a child should be punishable by execution (including posession of child pornography). Also anyone who injures someone badly enough to cause permanent disabilities or impairments should be executed. Dealing illegal drugs should be punishable by death as well.

I also think that they should stop keeping people on death row for years or even decades before executing them. Once a criminal is sentenced to execution, the appeal shoudl take place as soon as possilbe (preferrably within 6 months of the sentencing), and if their conviction is not overturned at the appeal, they should be executed immediately.

Answer 9

Punishment should fit the crime, an arsonist should be burned at the site if the fire he caused(if death resulted from his action), preferably before the ashes are cold.
Rapist should have sexual organs surgically removed( I know rape isn't about sex, but it would give most of them second thoughts, don't you think).
Murderers should be put to death at a speed which would vary according to the heinous nature of their crime.
Punishment by it's very nature is cruel and unusual, so I don't see why that would prevent you from doing it.
It's purpose would transform from rehabilitation back to prevention and punishment.

Answer 10

I'm for it, why should I pay for a murderer to live comfortably in a dry warm place with television and three square meals...no just kill them. It'll stop overcrowding the prison system and it'll put my tax money to good use!