what are your opinions on the death penalty?

Question

for or against, and why?

just curious :)


PS because this is a political and constitutional subject, please keep god out of it. One cant argue "thou shalt not kill" in congress...

Oh for all of you arguing about the "hundreds of innocents" found on death row thanks to DNA testing-- there have been 134, since 1989. and some people are claiming that even that number is skewed, as some of those were overturned because of "police or procedural error" as in, he did it, but the police screwed up and the evidence that proved he did it should not have been entered into court, and a few werent even really on death row, they were serving life when DNA got them out.

Answer 1

We put animals to sleep that are a danger to society and to humans, we should most certainly put other humans to sleep that are a danger to society and other humans. I don't buy that "well we might kill an innocent person". Like Drew Peterson-there isn't much physical evidence as of yet-but there are way too many coincidences and has shoddy answers for all of them. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
---as far as our laws coming from scriptures-no they do NOT. If they do then which part of the wishy washy scripture does the death penalty come from? "Thou shalt not kill", or "Eye for and eye"?

Answer 2

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, whether it risks killing innocent people.

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

Against. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1972, the death penalty was applied so arbitrarily and capriciously and that juries had such "unbridled discretion" in deciding on a death sentence that it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under that standard. When states revised their statutes in 1976, the SCOTUS ruled that the new statutes provided for "guided discretion" when deciding on a death sentence and so they were, therefore, constitutional again.
THIS IS BUNK!!
The application of the death penalty, in spite of the existence of apparent "guided" sentencing schemes on paper, is still too frought with arbitrariness and capriciousness to reach a standard of constitutionality. From the DA's decision as to who s/he will seek the death penalty against, throughout the pretrial motions, jury selection, trial and post-conviction processes, there are far too many instances of unequal application.
The MOST egregious single factor, however, is that the very sentencing schematics on which the SCOTUS based its decision that made the death penalty constitutional once again are woefully misunderstood and misapplied by the jurors who are required to follow them. And, most of the misunderstanding is with respect to mitigating circumstances, which are those circumstances which may lead juries away from a death sentence.
Additionally, the jury selection process itself has been demonstrated to bias jurors toward conviction for 2 reasons. First, most juries in death cases sit for both phases of the case -- trial and sentencing. The only opportunity for questioning occurs prior to trial phase. Thus, attorneys must question prospective jurors about their position on the death penalty (a possible punishment) prior to the guilt of the defendent even being established. Cognitively, having to hypothetically think about applying a punishment to a person PRESUMES THEIR GUILT. Second, jurors who are philosophically, religiously, or otherwise strongly opposed to the death penalty are unable to sit on death penalty trials. These people have been shown to be more due process oriented and less conviction prone than their pro-death penalty counterparts.
These are ALL unemotional, law-related and scientifically backed positions with an abundance of credible peer reviewed research to back them. The courts, however, have simply dismissed the entire body of research repeatedly because to NOT do so opens a pandora's box they do not want to look into.

Answer 4

I'm against it.
The way I see it....murder in the name of justice is still murder. No person, or government, has the right to take a life just because they consider someone unworthy of that life.

My opinion has nothing to do with "God". It's about fairness, and reason. That is something that can be argued in Congress, but I think it should be argued in the Supreme Court.

Answer 5

DNA has reversed hundreds of death penalty cases. So no,I don't believe in the death penalty. As far a crime deterrents go, the criminal mentality is "I'm not going to get caught". So you could give life for speeding and it's not going to stop it. It might lessen it, but not stop it. In fact higher sentencing causes more heinous crimes to be committed to cover up the crime (drug dealers killing cops and wittinesses).Because what's the difference between 30 years without parole for the dope in their car and killing the cop pulling them over so that maybe they can get away.

Answer 6

Actually, one can argue "thou shalt not kill" because in our society we all acknowledge murder to be wrong. Doesn't matter if that particular phrase is religious. Being a political and constitutional subject, one must point out that whole "freedom of speech" thing in the constitution... As far as the death penalty goes, I'd have to say that the person would have to be one sick f*** for me to want him/her dead.

Answer 7

Those that have chosen the path to Death Row knew the consequences of such a decision. We seem to have little problem with destroying other creatures that "are in the way" or pose health threats to human society...and humans are creatures here, too.

I would like to see more immediate & effective carry-outs of penalties in our judicial system...it only took a moment to decide on going the route that got them into prison, it should only take a moment to "remove the problem" entirely.

It simply makes no sense that insurance companies only allot a 3-day max stay at a hospital for repairing a body that pays taxes, follows laws, etc., yet we allow years to those who have caused irreparable damage to a society...we still have to pay our insurance & medical bills, as well as upkeep for these folks on top of that...go figure. If you can put a dog to sleep within minutes of them arriving at the vet, because they are suffering with no other options for good life...why not apply the same thinking for those that create suffering, & harm options for other's good life???

As far as a rare innocent being downed..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

Answer 8

I'm for the Death Penalty, though it should be used with caution. Prosecutors who use unscrupulous methods to obtain convictions should face stiff penalties.

Are some crimes so heinous that the perpetrator should be executed? I believe so. I really think Ted Bundy deserved to die.

Should the truly insane, mentally damaged and the retarded be executed? No.

One more point. I've seen the phrase "effective deterrent" used in this forum. If the Death Penalty deters one murderer than it is effective. Especially if you're the victim.

Oh, and the commandment is "Thou Shall Not Murder".

Answer 9

For it: The world is just getting out of hand because there a other continents that do not have the death penalty and go and have a look at how full the prisons is and how high the crime rate is in that continents.

I am for it!

Answer 10

I am for the death penalty!
Why
1. John Couey
2. John Wayne Gacy
3. Ted Bundy
4. Charles Manson
5. Any Pedophile
6. Scott Peterson
7. Any one who takes the life of an Police Officer
8. Any one who kills a child.
9. Jose Medellin http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58063
http://www.rightsourceonline.com/welch/comment2.cfm?rank_cho=1343
10. Henry Lee Lucas

How many more reasons do you want.