Are you for or against the death penalty ?

Bronwen

I live in the US, so my answer will reflect the death penalty in my country.

I hate it. I wish all states that still practice it would replace it with a natural life term with no possibility of parole. I realize that some people need to be separated from society for the rest of their lives because of their crimes, and that's why I favor the natural life sentence, which means until they die in prison, rather than the life sentences which are handed down in some states which do allow for parole after a long time.

I have various reasons for being against it, but I will just tell you a few, or this would go on all night.

1. We humans are, by nature, flawed, and we make mistakes. It has been proven that innocent people have been put to death. That's a punishment you can never take back, and since we don't always have all the right information at the right time, we shouldn't be dishing out a punishment from which there is no return. The death of even one innocent person should be enough to put a moratorium on capital punishment, but instead the broken system keeps hobbling along.

2. The death penalty, as it is applied in the US, is not applied in a fair and just manner. If you can afford really good lawyers, even if you are completely guilty, chances are good they can get you off. The problem is that most people who find themselves facing a capital murder trial cannot afford good lawyers, and have to make do with public defenders who don't always know what they are doing. I read of one case where the public defender literally slept through most of the trial. He never posed any objections to the claims or testimony from the prosecutor's witnesses. The judge actually tried to help him out by waking him up and asking him if he wouldn't like to voice an objection, but he knew so little about what he was doing that he declined the help. His client was executed after having a completely disastrous trial. Minorities and the poor make up the bulk of prisoners on Death Row, but in most states, they are also in the minority in prison populations. That indicates that their trials are not being handled correctly, and that white and/or wealthy defendants are evading the punishment because they can afford decent attorneys. I actually know someone who committed a capital offense (I live in a state with the Death Penalty), and his family has money, so he and his brother and their cousins all served very short terms in prison, and are out now. The guy they killed is, however, still dead. Their ability to hire good lawyers made all the difference.

3. Many states have such convoluted laws that once the process is rolling, it's almost impossible to stop it. In several cases, new evidence which exonerates the defendant has come to light, but it has come to light too late in the process, and there have been no provisions for the evidence to be reviewed in a court. Accordingly, the state proceeds with the execution, despite there being proof that the person is innocent. That happens most often during election years, when governors, who are the only people who can halt an execution once it is close to being carried out, are afraid to commute or pardon, for fear of angering the general public.

4. The practice of taking the Death Penalty off the table in return for a person testifying against others is a huge mistake. In many states, the first one to volunteer to be a witness for the prosecution gets a pass, even if they are the one who actually committed the crime. It seems like it was Oklahoma (I could be wrong) which executed a kid who never got out of the car during an armed robbery where the person shot later died. The actual triggerman was the first one to cooperate, and he got the deal. The kid who was executed testified that he had no idea it was to be an armed robbery, and that was actually confirmed by the third person who was present that night. Since someone died during the commission of a felony, it was a capital case, and the one person who was least responsible for the death was the one who died for it. That's just messed up.

5. Regardless of what people say, it is not a deterrent to capital crimes. If it were, we wouldn't have anyone else sitting on Death Row, would we? What I do think it does is send a message that life is cheap, and that with a little luck, you too can commit murder, and evade punishment.

I will leave it at that, though I have many other objections. It's a flawed system, both because of how it operates, and because humans are running it and they make mistakes. Once you take a life, you can't just ask for a do over, and revive the dead. They're gone for good. To me, that's a sobering fact, and good enough reason to stop executing people.

CGIV76

I decide on a case by case basis.
There are some crimes so heinous that the removal of the person from this earth is the only real answer. Ted Bundy is a good example. He not only demonstrated the ability to escape, but continued to rape and murder women when he did escape.
There are others where (as in the case of Timothy McVeigh) the person is unlikely to repeat the crime, execution will make them a martyr; plus to them, being locked up is worse than death.
Another good example is Zacarias Moussaoui. He is not going to be executed, he is not allowed to communicate with anyone, and he will have to rot in jail for the rest of his life and contemplate his crimes.
To me, that seems more just than allowing him to waive his appeals, get one last bit of publicity at execution, and die a martyr.
Now he will die old, alone, and forgotten.

DANBOSPD

For it - Gene pool cleansing... we need it

letfreedomring

I have always had a plan for people who have the death penalty.

A way for them to give back.

On the day they are supposed to be sent to death they go to a lab. They are not able to have contact with the outside world because they are to be considered dead.

In this lab they test the worst disease's known to man and also do research on the mind and why they have done such bad things. They test drugs on them and eventually they die.
Then the body is donated to science.

If by some chance there is a wrongful conviction there could be a slight chance of the person going free. If the person dies during the process and later found that they were wrongfully convicted then at least they were able to give back to humanity.

Will

Against

Dion V

I'm against it.

i would rather pay taxes for a thousand murders to stay alive in jail than to have my tax dollars spent compensating one Innocent persons widow/er

imagine taking that death walk for yourself as a innocent person? or someone who was defending themselves, and they didn't get a fair trial, otherwise it would have been manslaughter? too many if's and but's to mess with life and death.

and who are we to play god anyway?

on another note, id like to mention that here in Australia we dint have the death penalty, and yet we have far less murders than other western countries that do (vs population ratio)

so I'm not sure if it really helps to keep the peace, which is what law and punishment is supposed to be about.

Golden Lion

Against its not our decision to make a person die

Susan S

Against with pragmatic reasons. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid terrible punishments for terrible crimes to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime, to look at alternatives and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. This topic shouold be discussed with facts and credible sources.

127 people on death rows released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, canâ€™t guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. To deter others 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 donâ€™t.

We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole costs less 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 have testified 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. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Miss Chevious

against it , i believe in givin others a second chance , its true that some ppl deserve death for their horrible crimes but only god can take their souls not us .

madredejohnson

i am for it, but only in the extreme cases. i think that sociopathic criminals convicted of murder along with any other felony should face the death penalty. if you have ever studied sociopathic criminals you will find that they are still able to influence the world from behind bars. look at charles manson. he still recieves tons of fan mail. inmates surrounding him are awed by him and go out of their way to please him, not for fear, but out of admiration.

look at the case of david brown, he convinced his young daughter to murder her step-mother, then married her underaged sister. while in jail, he concocted a plan and nearly had it carried out to have his new wife murdered, the DA, and at least 1 investigator. he also nearly escaped. he is anti-social, however he has a strange ability to manipulate people. he feels no remorse for his actions, which is a commonality with sociopaths. they know right from wrong, but do not think it should have to apply to them. i think it is important to rid our society from these types of criminals specifically.

i have done a lot of research and study on the types of killers. i have very firm beleifs on how this type of murder happens and how it can be prevented. the sociopath does not have a conscience. they don't see a kid fall off his bike and wonder if he's ok. they see the kid and wonder if he's hurting enough. if you have ever looked into the eyes of a sociopath, there is blankness there. some describe it as evil, but that's not what comes to my mind. i see emptiness.

these individuals can and often do pose a threat to society even if they are incarcerated. therefor this type of killer i think should be considered for the death penalty. i have yet to come across a truly gruesome murder that was not commited by someone eventually given the diagnosis of sociopath. i am not saying there aren't any cases, just so far in my research, that is what i have found.

if you are curious i can site more cases of sociopaths who commited murder.

WATP

for it, only for child molesters,rapists and serial killers.

j1fpw834

For. The reasons are many and varied. The word "justice" comes to mind. The phrase "self-defense" comes to mind as well. There is never a case where self-defense is not justified and society has a right to defend itself.
I can continue, but this really isn't the venue to write an entire article.

scredawg

For it! ends recidivism...

gldmj5

I'm still on the fence concerning the death penalty. Ethically I'm leaning against it, but for practicality's sake I'm leaning for it.

phxwolf2

I am For it. Of course we would want to make certain the person put to death is the guilty party. There are just some crimes out there that are so completely evil that the person responsible for such heinous behavior should die and die horribly.

Rana

for it,provided there is no wrong decision

pooled08

I am for the death penalty. here's why:

-it serves due justice (the punishment fits the crime), and serving due justice is the NO.1 job of a court of law (preventing crime is NOT their job)
-it shows that we are tough on crime
-it gets bang for the taxpayers buck
-criminals given the DP have a 0% recidivism rate
-It holds people responcible for the horrible content of their character. This fulfills what MLKJ always wanted: judge not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character. The characterof these criminals warrants death
-It holds the criminal responcible for his actions
-appeals and **** aside, it's cheaper then prison
-it decreases the prison population, which saves even more taxpayers money
-Because the death penalty is the punishment given by a neutrel judge, there is no vengance in it. Therefore, there is no moral objection to be had with the death penalty.
-The death penalty defends human rights by establishing a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's

EraseMatePens

I'm for it. However, the constitution of this country was meant to protect even the most disgusting and pitiful people from the whims of the public.

It should PROBABLY (not sure) be made unconstitutional. Some of the procedures used do cause cruel and unusual punishment. But hey, if you wanted them dead, wouldn't you want them to suffer too?

rustybones

I am for it. Why should we accommodate criminals when they serve no useful purpose in society? Get rid of them and free up more jail space for others to fill, then dispose of them, too.

dreamweaver

For it when the party is guilty without a doubt

:-) Bird Brain

I don't think it should be used lightly; however, I do believe that there is a time when a person has not only done so much irretrievable damage, but will certainly CONTINUE to do damage even from prison that he is a literal menace to society, and cannot be allowed to continue to live.

I do NOT believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, and that it should not be a "routine" sentence for ANY crime.

gina

I am very much for the death penalty. I believe society needs it. I think if we'd use it more often and harsher methods people would think twice before hurting one another.

TURANDOT

After reading Timothy McVeigh's biography, I am against the death penalty.

Why? Well, it is a quick way out for the perpetrator. The cost on taxpayers to pay appeals, lawyers, etc., is enormous.
Tim McVeigh himself was an agnostic and not concerned for serving any justice in the afterlife.
The death penalty puts people out of their misery too soon. There is no proof that they're going anywhere to continue the sentence afterwards.

It is far more cost effective to keep the guy alive, and a long-lasting punishment

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: