Do you believe in the death penalty? Why or why not?

Question

Please elaborate with evidence. Thanks.

Answer 1

I really don't believe the death penalty deters crime and I definitely don't believe in murdering anyone. Some murderers are monsters who deserve the worst but I will not sink to their level. We should give them life in prison and make them suffer for what they did.

Answer 2

No. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle without thinking about these.

126 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 those 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

Greetings!

No, I do not support the death penalty.

First, the death penalty has NEVER been a deterrent to crime and never will be. Many deaths are crimes of passion. When one is in that kind of emotional state, you're not thinking about the consequences - you're only thinking about killing them or inflicting damage.

Second, two "wrongs" don't make a "right". If we, as a society, say it is "wrong" to kill someone, then it is wrong - period. That doesn't mean that the "State" gets a free pass just to scare people into not killing. At that point, the "State" is just as guilty of a crime as the murderer.

"An eye for an eye" is just Christian hypocrisy. Somewhere in the same bible, it says "judge not, lest ye be judged". Isn't retribution a form of judgment?

Let's focus on love and breaking down barriers.

I wish you Peace.

Answer 4

Absolutely! Why as tax payers should we be fronting the bill to keep convicted lifers like Charles Manson alive. The average cost per inmate in California is $30,929.00. Overcrowding in the jails releases convicted criminal back on the street long before their sentence has been served simply because we don't have the space to hold them. Couldn't our tax dollars be put to better use than spending a little over 30k a year to keep them comfortably alive. That money could fund a lot of social programs that could be targeted at keeping people out of jail in the first place. In answer to those who claim "What if you have the wrong person?" The appeals process is quite exhaustive to try and prevent that from happening and there are plenty of life sentenced criminals that freely admitted to comitting the atrocistes they were convicted of. I believe there is an arguement as to where you set the standard for a death penalty verdict, but I have no doubt that it is an appropriate punishment at a minimum for the committers of haunious acts of violence or serial killings at a minimum.

Answer 5

I consider myself to have more conservative views, and I know that people stereotype conservatives as being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Though I am Pro Life, the more I think about the death penalty, I don't think I agree with it.

Being a Christian, I believe that God is our final judge. And in the New Testament, Jesus preached to love your neighbor and instead of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, when your neighbor tries to slap you, turn your cheek to let him. This will heap hot coals upon his head.
I don't think that we should just kill these people, but I DO believe in keeping them in jail for LIFE. No parole. No priveleges. They should stay in their isolated cells.
They shouldn't get special treatment or anything or given ANY chance to escape.

I think that the death penalty is used as revenge, and I do not believe in revenge. Vengance is the Lord's. I believe that even a cold blooded killer can repent and be forgiven of his/her sins.

HOWEVER, I do think that the death penalty does a good job of instilling FEAR in people. It prevents people from committing crime. I think that the death penalty would be useful if conducted like the British monarchy-it's there, but it doesn't do much. I think this is probably a reason why people are kept on death row so long.

Answer 6

It's 100% natural,if somone kills your relitive you would deffinatly want the person to be killed.When this is the case than everybody should get the right to decide which kind of revange he wants.
Also bear in mind that it seems cruall to kill a person but it saves lives of thousands of others.

Answer 7

I have a better system. It will even work if say 30 years later you find out the person was innocent, they can be set free. It will also work as a definite deterrent and as justice for the victim.

First a few questions; What is the one thing a victim's family does when their loved one is murdered? Grieve, right? And for how long? Forever, until they die, right?

That's why this will satisfy both sides and exact it's full measure of justice at the same time. Ready?

Full medical induced paralysis. The only things they can move is their mouth and eyes. Medicated until they die. Fed with a tube. They could live for many many years. If new evidence is found, then all we do in rehab them back to health and release them. This would be the most humane and terrible justice I can think of without actually putting them to death.

What say you?

Answer 8

Yes, but not as its done today.

I dont support the 'eye for an eye' idea as that implies it is retiliation. I dont even see it as a punishment.
It is protection for society and the persons within. I would put down a dog if it were aggressive and unable to peaceably function with other dogs and people. I also support putting down people who cannot be rehabilitated. These people will always be a danger as long as they are alive, so they must be destroyed.
I dont care that the numbers dont back it up as a deterrent because it doesnt need to be one IMO.
If there is any chance for rehab and the person living peacefully with his fellows, then the death penalty is not an option.

I do not believe the family of the victim should have access to the death-as that also implies retaliation.

Were it protection, rather than revenge, punishment or a supposed deterent then I would support if 100%.

Answer 9

No

because:

If you had to choose, which would you think is worse:

a) death by lethal injection

b) spending the rest of your life in the same 6x6 foot cell. No parole. No early release for good behaviour. Food is in the form of buckets of dead insects. Beverage is water. No doctors or dentists appointments. No gym time. No TV. No computers.

Answer 10

i do, i belive there are some prisoners that no longer fit to society and some deserve a second change