Are You For Or Against The Death Penalty? ?

chester

hi there
No one have this permission and no one is in the position to do that
so i am against that that's what god should do now if some one who killed SB not accidentally he should die cos of that
but in other way never we shouldnt play with GOD's job
just think more u see the person who kill SB he shouldnt do that so he played with GOD's work so he should be in death penalty
unfortunatly in my country sooo many ppl die in this way why ?
because they have another Idea that goverment dont like so they die because of their way of thinking yeah here is iran
if we kill sb for death penalty what is diff between we and he ?
good luck

sassysophisticate14

Against it. Why turn more people into murderers?

Help please
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081012114205AAXS7qX

Humble E.

I don't believe in killing. God is my judge.

Aimee

Against! Seriously how can you show murder is wrong by killing? Its just plain stupid. Plus I think that criminals suffer more in prison.

James O

against, the government can't find it's azz with both hands, and judging by some of the questions on these boards, the jury pool is how do I say this...a bit special. It's just too easy to convict and execute someone who is not guilty. Add that to the idea that they have been executing criminals for centuries and criminals are still committing crimes, so so much for the deterrent factor, and the fact it costs more in court fees for death penalty appeals than it does to keep a guy in prison for life without parole, you have a very flawed system. Basically unless they come up with a 100% reliable way to ensure guilt, the state shouldn't be executing people, in my opinion.

Logan

Against. There's no use to just kill someone. It's better to keep them locked up and make them suffer for what they've done.

idontknow

against it because it actually costs more money than keeping a person in prison for life

lulu

Against - Its an irreversible act - so many miscarriages of justice come to light, too late if you are hanged.

Ruth Ellis would not have hanged today, although she was not innocent, she did NOT deserve to hang - that was barbaric - we dont need to go back to the dark ages

rosalinda

im against it because i think everyone should die when God wants and you can punish people who do wrong in other forms

Russ

There's no need for the so-called death penalty in my opinion. People need to protect themselves from aggressors as many decent hard working people do by owning their own guns for defense. Study the true statistics of any city that has 0 gun control laws and you'll learn that crime is next to nothing...

Kimberly M

I am against. it really doesn't help anything and actually costs the government more money.

oReOs

Against. People shouldn't be deciding that big of an issue.

goofygrl413

against
it makes no sense to me

James

I am against the death penalty because if they are just killed, then they and others will never learn from their mistake to commit the crime.

rich k

I oppose the death penalty because of the degree of unavoidable human error intrinsic in our judicial system. A person convicted in error and imprisoned can be released, a person wrongfully executed remains dead. Whenever people talk about how horrible a crime is I have to wonder if it was sufficiently horrible that they themselves would be willing to be wrongfully executed for it, or if they would be willing to let their child so be. That is the question any discussion of the death penalty should address.

jack

against by far, some murderers kill out of the moment and deeply regret it...

luna6887

against.

i always asked myself how we could punish a person who murders by murdering them? that makes us no better than them. does that mean we should get the death penalty as well?

the way a person should be punished for murder is them spending the rest of their life in prison and working in there AND sending the money they earn (which i heard is like .15 cents an hour) to the family of the deceased.

-Priscilla Luna (me!)

bookish

I'm against it for several reasons. First, I do not believe our legal system could apply it equally or fairly. Those who could afford good lawyers would be less likely to be sentenced to death. Second, there is always the chance that a mistake could be made. DNA testing has exonerated many people who were in jail for years. What if they'd been executed? It's not worth the risk of executing even one innocent person. Third, it seems rather hypocritcal to say that our society does not condone murder and then we turn around and commit murder ourselves.
Most industrialized countries do not have capital punishment, and their murder rates are lower than the US. Capital punishment is not demostrated to be a deterrent.
I'm not suggesting we allow killers to roam free. Life in prison with no possibility of parole seems sufficient to me.
Edit: Ryan, I would feel the same way if someone I loved were killed. If killing the murderer would bring that person back, then, fine, I'll pull the switch myself. But it won't, and I don't presume that my own loss is greater than that of someone else. What, just kill my child's murderer but not yours? Kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

the demoiselle

i'm for an optional death penalty. where the option of that of the convict. if someone would rather die than spend life in prison, they should have that option, but it shouldn't be the choice of the judge. there are far too many cases where the person is actually not guilty.

Susan S

Against. When you look at the death penalty system in action, you realize that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge, it is seriously (and intrinsically) flawed in application and that there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. And, contrary to what some answerers stated, it costs much more than life in prison. Sources below.

130 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. If someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave.

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.

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?

Families of murder victims are not unanimous about the death penalty. However, even families who have supported the death penalty in principal 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

El Guapo

I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 30 years in the U.S., over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty â€œbeyond a reasonable doubt.â€ Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

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

2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending 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). It could be that the high cost (see #2) drains resources from police departments, education, and other government programs that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murderâ€¦by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, 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 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. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects â€œan eye for an eyeâ€ (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

jcivianon

What kind of crime are u going to commit?

<3life

im against if the person hasnt admitted to it

and for it if they have and if they commited a serious enough crime

C L

It depends on what the person did. If it was horrific, then yes.

dabirdie

I'm for it. The drain on our economy to support people who will never be able to be rehabilitated and returned to society is prohibitive. We should all have the laws of Texas and maybe some criminals that are bordering on violent crimes would think twice if they knew there was only a death sentence, not a life sentence. We also treat criminals too humanely. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Many people live long healthy lives by never committing a crime, it's very possible to make a good choice.

Belinda C

Let me just explain that I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right. I believe that if someone made a horrible mistake, or did something slightly bad that just turned out horribly wrong, they deserve a second chance. However, if there is a person who committed a horrific crime with the intent of committing that horrific crime, they can't ever be rehabilitated and they are just going to be a drain on society, wasting space in a prison cell, just execute them and get it over with. If you think the death penalty is inhumane, just use them for experiments, instead of animals. At least, then, their life would have some useful cause. I know I just said that I'm both for and against it, but I don't think in "black and white."

spetsnazbruteforce

Well depends on the crime, say example Murder is it acceptable? No it would be over kill id rather see them rot and drop the soap in prison than hanging from a gallow and out of trouble, but say it was a murder of a family or village city or mass slaughter then yes it in my opinion would be acceptable for the fact if this guy gets a second chance on the street (its happend before) whos to say it wont happen again best to get rid of a problem as large as that.

Anonymous

It depends on what they do.

RiLES<3

for!
if a person kills another person, it is wrong. taking a life= getting your life taken.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: