I've asked this question some time ago now see if the responce is the same?

Poole1Dan

I am for the death penalty, and 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
-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
-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 establishes a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's"
-It is a terrific deterrent to violent crimes when it is carried out swiftly, as the United states proved when we had the pre 1960's DP system, and as China is proving today. On the other hand, European countries only have 65 less deaths per 100,000 people per year, despite having millions and millions less people

jsied96

re-introduce????

The supreme court has said it is an option for certain crimes, murder specifically.

Your state(s) legislators are who have reduced the actual use of the death penalty

Miss Guided

My state government never stopped introducing capital punishment for murder. It's pretty standard here in the south for people to get the death penalty for killing someone. It takes forever for them to get executed, but it does happen.

psdiver

Chris:
By any chance are you asking this from the UK or Canada??
The USA has had capital punishment on the books for quite some time now. It is up to the laws of the particular State if the "death" sentence is used or not.

rommel

1950s!! three murders a year. 2008. three murders a week. the difference is the death penalty. those words 'you will hang by the neck until you are dead'....tended to be a good deterrent. and children could actually play in the streets then. i know, i was one of those safe secure kids. i wouldn't swap my child hood for a child hood of today that's for sure. we have let our children down badly. Brent p....how do the thousands of people laying in early graves because your profession hasn't the balls to do its duty and take killers off the street effect your conscience? every time a child is murdered or raped because your profession let another @rse hole out on a technicality.....doe's that get to you at all?

El Guapo

I supported capital punishment for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the U.S. over the last 30 years, over 100 people have been released from death row after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida â€“ the most active execution state at the time â€“ to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murderâ€¦by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, â€˜do as I say, not as I do.â€™

4. Thereâ€™s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DONâ€™T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, â€œI wish you had killed me.â€ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Veston Pants

I will answer int he way I always do.

It is impossible for the UK to reintroduce the death penalty and remain part of the EU. It is forbidden during membership.

Still killing people is wrong no matter who does it.

xxFJ

joan k

No, there were far to many miscarriages of justice.

Jake Rather

Not sure what answer you're looking for, we been juice'n them pretty regular here in Texas.

And doing a damn fine job I might add.

DK439

We have the death penalty in California, however, we do not use it the same way as Texas. Which is unfortunate!

Charles

The US Govt never took it away, individual states are given the ability to use this form of punishment if they see fit.

Susan S

Before you make up your mind, you should look at the death penalty system in action in the US.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that donâ€™t. And they are much higher in the US than in the UK.

129 people on death rows have been 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.

Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront=before and during the initial trial)

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.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-survivor.html for statements of victimsâ€™ families

The Patriot

DNA is not proof. It is evidence.

So no, the government should not reintroduce capital punishment for murder.

Franticweasel

you must not be from Texas.

BRENT P

Well, if they do, I, for one, will be leaving the legal profession. I do not want that on my conscience. And let's hope that those who are convicted are the guilty. After all, I am sure that an infallible system to ensure that only the guilty are convicted and the innocent acquitted can be introduced to replace the current imperfect criminal justice system.
Shouldn't the system be designed to protect the innocent at all costs, not convict the guilty at any cost? Do we not keep people in jail until we are convinced that they are rehabilitated? Perhaps by showing them humanity where appropriate, we make their guilt even harder for them to bear? Anyway, I suspect that the figures for reoffending by those convicted of homicide are not high.
Difficult and emotional one tho. Just my humble opinion and I do not think for one minute it is any more valid than anyone else's.

robert c

Yes!

kosm

re-introduce, this is in effect already in many states.

Dave C

UK YES !!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: