for or against the death penalty?

Question

why?

Answer 1

for. anyone who takes the life of another human and proven guilty should not be sitting here living off of all of us citizens...they should be on death row. period

Answer 2

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 3

For.

If the crime is horrible to warrant the death penalty then the person cannot be returned to society. Even if they somehow become sane they will be mortified by the things theyve done in the past-at that point killing them is being merciful compared to what they have to live with.

If they cant be rehabilitated and are unable to ever be returned to society, then why keep them alive? All species destroy the children with 'bad blood' and we should do the same.

However, I am only in support of the death penalty in extreme crimes. Exceptional violence (even if it doesnt lead to death), violent rape (non-violent rape is rarely actually rape), murder (depending on the situation).

As for murder, any killing of an officer should warrant the death penalty. That officer can be a desk cop, beat cop, even a horse or dog. A person willing to commit that crime is showing a complete lack of respect for the gov't and the people they represent and protect. Killing a person (or service animal) who's primary job is the protection of the innocent should not be tolerated.

Answer 4

Against.

But not for any humanitarian reason. Our bleeding heart liberals and ACLU have made it so hard, time consuming and expensive to execute someone it is a drain on the fund of the states.

Instead we should make a "no pardon, no parole, lifer" prison and stick these guys in there. All control of their motions should be done electronically so they can not even harm a guard or each other. Stick an electric shock belt on them so if they refuse to do what they get told via the speaker system you can zap them, go pick them up and stick them in isolation for a month. If they refuse again, two months, keep adding a month with each violation. Feed them by remote control. Let them have reading materials, movies and music via a closed computer system within the prison so they can not talk to anyone outside and so you can censor what they see and all of their communications. If they riot and destroy their computer, they do not get another one for a year, provided they behave themselves for that year.

You give them the option of suicide by providing them a pill.
If they do not like the prison conditions, they have a way out.

Answer 5

Against, because of how many errors are made in the legal system. There have been numerous people charged who didn't commit the crime and later found innocent, some after they were put to death.

There was recently in Canada the discovery that the star medical witness of numerous cases (same guy every case) was basically making up his analysis of the data sending many people to jail for murder. If Canada had a death penalty, many of these innocent people could have been put to death.

Having DNA evidence makes someone's chance of being guilty 99.99%, not 100%.

Answer 6

For.
Some people need to be removed from the earth. It is a fair punishment for people who didn't even bother to give others a fair trial before they killed.

Oh yes, and states with the death penalty have lower murder rates than those without.

To the dork who is comparing it to teaching a child not to hit by spanking them. Spanking when handled correctly, is actually an excellent method of punishment that gets the point across quickly and accurately. So you are wrong about this, too.
In addition, nobody with half a brain thinks that the death penalty is going to teach the person a lesson. It accomplishes the two-fold goal of protecting society by removing from it people who have proven that they are unfit to live in it, and a deterrent for those who might actually make a choice.
Really, why should decent, honest, hard-working people have to financially support people who are the opposite of that, and be forced to continue to live in a society that gives these people safe harbor, even if it is in prison? If we say that we value life, and value honor, then we have no choice but to say yes to the death penalty, and protect and honor the lives of people who don't go around doing others in.

Gosh! I keep having to add to this.

WE don't decide lightly who gets the death penalty and who does not. This is decided by the rule of law! Yes, in recognition of the fact that we are ALL faulty, they don't allow a decision like this to be made by one person (anymore). However, if you haven't noticed, even with all these faulty people, most of us don't go around murdering people deliberately. It's not like we're handing out the death penalty for bank robbery. It is for heinous acts of murder! Premeditated, horrible, bloody, acts of tearing a soul away from it's body! Not just your average, everyday, 'got-drunk-in-a-barroom-brawl -and just-hit-the-guy-too-hard' murder but the kind where someone creeps in to a 12 year olds room at night, steals her away, rapes her, cuts her to pieces and enjoys the whole thing! So he can do it again and again to somebody else's child! So YOU want to live in a society that has so little respect for the memory, and last moments, of that poor little girl, that they aren't even willing to punish her murderer with anything more than a free ride for life in better living conditions than a submarine captain?

Answer 7

I'm against the death penalty because i think people should suffer with their choices and be made to face them and be tourtured. But then again, If they need more room in the prison they can kill a few of the worst ones to make some more room

Answer 8

I am against it because if someone kills someone else why should the punishment death itself. I am not saying that they shouldn't get punished for killing someone because that's wrong, but if we tell people not to kill each other, then why are we fighting crime with crime. And another thing is in the amendments or w/e it bans all cruel and unusual death, well isn't the death penaly cruel and the ways of the person's death are unusual. So think about that Congress!

Answer 9

Until someone comes up with an alternative that keeps them in prison for life then I have to support it in cases where it is proven the person really committed the crime. Life Without Parole is great, IF the person doesn't escape.

Answer 10

I dont believe in the death penalty. It doesnt solve anything. Death is preferable to 30 years in prison. I do believe in a torture penaly though

Answer 11

Against.... NOT because I dont believe in frying killers... But the fact that most people dont know is it costs a lot more money to put someone on death row than to just put them in a cell till they die. Why should tax payers pay more $$ to kill some guy when we can just leave them rotting in a cell?