What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

SAE

Hmm I think some criminals really deserve it

iwasnotlookingforartyfartylove

theoretically i agree, but then...

you have to wonder what person could kill someone, whether the person they kill is a prisoner or not.

what if they were wrongly accused?

sooo many more reasons.

so i disagree with it overall.

MÃse

It can never be reversed, what about the misscarriages of justice you often hear of? A posthumous pardon isn't much good to anyone

Susan S

For students working on this topic the best place to start it at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1917 It has links to both sides (click on curriculum) and is easy to navigate.

In the meantime, when you look at the death penalty system in action you see many surprising and disturbing things. Sources below (several answers you received are based on incorrect information.)

Most disturbing is that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Lots of them. 130 people wrongfully convicted people were sentenced to death and were lucky to be exonerated and released, eventually. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, canâ€™t guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people. Obviously, if someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave.

A big surprise: The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, and it is well documented. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, and the largest costs come at the beginning, for the pre trial process and for the trial itself. The point is to avoid executing innocent people.

Families of murder victims are far from 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.

Other important facts:
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. It costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. Homicide rates are actually higher in states and regions that have it than in those that donâ€™t.

There are serious risks 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.

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?

Unless you ignore all these things, it is hard to support the death penalty.

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

And, for statements of victimsâ€™ families:
http://www.nyadp.org/main/70308Statements.html
www.mvfhr.org and www.mvfr.org

El Guapo

I am 100% against it.

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 35 years in the U.S., 130 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 is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it also 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."

6. Whether youâ€™re a hardened criminal or a government representing the people, killing another human being is wrong. â€œHe did it firstâ€ is not a valid excuse.

I hope that helps. Good luck on your project!

Fly in the Ointment

Well I think it is not our job to kill people and I am surprised that the right wing evangelical crazies do not agree. They have to be hypocrites as it is against Christian belief to execute someone. They pay more by spending their life in prison. Death is quick and painless but 30-50 years in a small cell is Hell. Besides it cost on average 7 million dollars for all the appeals to go through and it is cheaper to keep them alive in a cell.

Tim S

The state (any form of gov't in this case) does not have the right to take the lives of those it was created to protect.

Eltie88

It's wrong.

Why do we have the right to take away someone else's life? That makes us as bad as them.

Wade H

It's great propaganda.

A politician can and will kill tens of thousands without a blink from the populous whilst they argue the merits of "changing the law" to allow the death penalty ~ when there are back-doors around prohibitions against the death penalty and they use them.

These include measures that do not "procedurally require" any trial or Lawyer, or public notice ~ such as death by Labor for vagrants or De@dbeat dads (civil convicts can be legally deprived of all civil rights and are denied all civil rights by cons serfative courts as was proved by the JFK ~ that's John Fitzgerald Kennedy for those of you who can't recall there were Presidents before Reagan... ).

JFK found that "civil convictions" from cons serfative courts had accounted for 75% of all those who had even historically died over a 150+ years span prior to his Presidency had died as civil convicts with a life expectancy of less ~ that's LESS ~ than two years at forced labor.

Too bad, what history that is forgotten must be relived. Thus, when Reagan's ERA OF CENSOR-SHIP began in 1980 GWB ~ George Walker Bush another President, a distinctly lessor President, acting before he was President but rather as the then Governor of Texas re-instituted forced death by labor in the USA. Whoooooopie ! Yeeeehah

JEEEEEEHADDDDD.?????

Yup, they are farcically American. But they do so love Holly Terrorism and Herd Stampeding as a precursor to outright popuation if not national "Rustling".

In fact, as long as it's "procedurally" OK with the Political and the Legal "people" ~ as it is now ~ no notice need be given for a political arrest.

Political arrest? In the USA? Yup. Most De@dbeat dads arrested can count on one thing: It's Procedurally Incorrect NOT TO FORBID ANYONE TO SPEAK OR PRINT ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE DIVORCE, INCLUDING ARRESTS ARISING FROM A DIVORCE WITH "ANY CHILD'S DELICATE PSYCHE AT STAKE".

Children tend not to understand how it's fair to say to 40% of the populous that they have no right to a business License because that would be wrong, politically.

Politically Wrong? Yes, Politically wrong. Conserfatives Politically argue three important things: One redistribution of wealth via taxation is "Constitutionally" wrong ~ such as public schools for instance, because your neighbor might own enough to send his kids to school, andthey might not be all that bright ~ but if they were the ONLY kids going to school it would be to their advantage. Sending your children to school for that rich neighbor with money but no bright children places him at a disadvantage that he has to pay for via TAXES. They take his money, and hurt him with it by for all intentions and purposes giving it to you to send your kids to school with so that his kid has no advantage.

It's of course a silly argument. Few would argue tax redistribution issues as conserfatives do, over and over again in cloistered court environments (this means you had a right to hear the argument in 1980 ~ but after that if you didn't catch on too bad cause "Rons election was a self declared referendum" and they aren't going to publically ask again).

But you cannot blame them. It's their number one means of robbing the rest of us blind.

Cause the second cliostered argument is insanity. If you are insane, or adjudged insane when your not, you are "presumed by the courts" ~ rhetorically or no ~ to be protected by a censorship of the civil procedings.

So, they can and do pronounce Liberals insane by Tax Kleptomania. We take what is unconstitutionally ours ~ or rather would if the conserfatives were not there to "save us from ourselves". (Theives go to hell you know).

As the insane in the USA for the most part cannot know they are adjudged insane or thus resist forced and involuntary d ope to "treat" this largely rhetorical insanity... well such drugs might well cause "shifts in Libido" and cause de@dbeat dad syndrom. Cause nobody stays with a cheating spouce, and the courts can hit political dissafected persons with charges of Liberalism and thus insanity and thus "treat with date r ape d rugs".

AIDS follows.

Courts in the USA started out by electing to pour boiling water down the throats of "Torries". JFK proved they are still dangerous.

But we elected Cons Serfatives anyway.

And that is the death penalty.

Ian B

It is wrong death is too easy of an escape for those evil they should be in solitary confinement for the rest of their life.for the rapists they should be raped in jail for the thieves they should be beat and have there cafeteria food stolen, and the murders should be in solitary for the rest of there life.

thatonechick

well I was okay with used on hussein but you can't make exceptions for a certain decision, like you can't say one person gets it and not the rest- or vice versa.
What if someone WAS innocent? and we had no way of really knowing...
then you would have killed someone for nothing!
I think we should eliminate it so innocent people don't die, and also we should have it in some cases (like hussein) so innocent people still don't die.
but you see how thats messed up right?
so I'm gonna go with just "no death penalty" for now.

BigRichGuy

I think it is perfectly acceptable punishment for some crimes. That is, of course, as long as the one without sin casts the first stone.

Iron Man

Consider this: the state will not protect human life before birth so why does the state protect human life after birth? Or, to put it another way, if the state permits the termination of human life before birth, then why shouldn't the state permit the termination of human life after birth? In fact, a good case can be made for the death penalty in countries that permit abortion. The unborn human life has not broken any laws against society and yet can still be terminated. If that is so, then is it not even more legitimate to terminate the life of someone who has broken society's laws?

MEL T

I agree with it as long as their is either
1. Serious Physical Evidence (DNA, 20 witnesses, etc)
2. A Confession

I fear killing an innocent man, but believe in the death penalty for the guilty. You do not get to kill other people and then live your life. It's not justice.

Flingershock (Suspended)

I don't think the death penalty is either right or wrong. It is up to the people. I personally would say exile is a better punishment than the death penalty for several reasons:

-If the criminal gets executed, he or she is only punished a fraction of the total suffering they caused

-Why waste taxpayer money on criminals that will be put to death anyway?

-Why glorify criminals by televising them instead of quietly sending them off to an unknown place to survive on their own if they can.

-Why take a life that the U.S. did not first give the criminal when they were born? If the U.S. gave the person his original life, the U.S. has every right to take it back. Because the criminal cannot cooperate with the laws of the nation they are separated from society but if death is the means to do it then I believe that is worth scrutinizing. Better kick them out then kill them you know?

Bob Bobble

we need less lawyers and faster executions, its expensive to house prisoners

latest estimate is like 45,000 dollars a year for each prisoner, why should my tax dollars go to them creeps

whadda ya think ...

I think it's more than fair...

I think it's crazy the number of years it takes for the death penalty to actually happen...

Once the judge and jury have found that person guilty.. it should be done that day... think of all the money us tax payers could save...

ChickieLee

As a former Florida State Prison employee, I'd like to point out that for death row inmates (and most non-death row) there is no tv, no ac (and it gets HOT down here!), shower twice a week and the food... not a perk. I am strongly in favor of the death penalty. With sufficient evidence, witnesses or admission of guilt it should be administered without further ado. The average length of stay on death row is 15 years - all that time crowding the system and being supported by tax dollars. Most of these people have committed the most heinous crimes and can never be members of society again. If not the death penalty, they should have the american flag tattooed on their foreheads and sent to the front lines overseas. They can either fight or die. Either way they'd no longer be our problem.

Sergio H

They judge for killing, and kill for judging.

I think some deserve it, but some not. Some days ago, I saw a documentary on A & E about woman on the death row. If you can find it, it can help you to decide if death penalty is right or wrong.

sugar baby

I think that prisoners spend far too long sitting on death row. They get too many chances at appeals. If someone took the life of one of my loved ones, I know that their death would not bring my loved one back, but why should this person get to live, rent free, with three meals a day, cable TV, air conditioning, and health care? There many hard working Americans can not afford all that.
I say let the lifers and death row inmates do some good for society. Use them for Government drug experiments. If a drug company thinks they have a drug that will treat Hepatitis, HIV, or AIDS, try it on the prisoners. If it does damage, oh well. They were going to die in prison anyway. If they die sooner, that just saves the taxpayers money.

happyhitler

i think that if you have premeditate murder or any kind of molestation you should be killed.

KC V â„¢

There will always be pro and con.

Personally, I think if we adjudicated the death penalty more often...people would know the courts are serious about killing others and invoke the penalty more often.

Those against will justify it being against the biblical teachings...yet when you read the bible...it wholeheartedly supports the death penalty...just in a much more archaic manner such as death by stoning!

Many don't remember the young boy who who spat his gum out on the street in Singapore. He was "caned" as punishment and there was such outrage from the US.

The old saying "when in Rome...do as the Romans!"

I bet this young boy never spits his gum out again!

Death penalty would work better if it was applied as it should be instead of all this nonsense about "unusual punishment!"

Mike M

They don't use it enough.

wizjp

There are some incredibly evil beings out there who are committing the most horrible crimes imaginable against the weakest and least of us. A just society demands that the only true justice for these acts is a forfeit of their own lives; and nothing less can really be called justice.

Siani

i think its a great idea. those who kill others intentionally without reason are a danger to other lives and should not be allowed to live if they have taken anothers right to live. in other words youve taken all that persons human rights away, why should you have any human rights, including that right to live?

they complain about over crowding prisons in the UK, bring back the death penalty and bobs your uncle, problem solved.

under_score91

Depending on what you believe, the death penalty can be right or wrong. Kill the murderers. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Seems fair, but then there are people who argue that doing that would make you just as bad as them. They also argue that death penalty ensures that you cannot fix your mistake if you get the wrong man.

The state shouldn't take the lives of the people it is supposed to protect, but people should only be entitled to their rights if they fulfill their duties.

My opinion is that if one innocent life is lost to save thousands, then it is a sad but acceptable loss. one less living murderer is a good thing. Besides, the death penalty will serve as a deterrant, and people will think twice before committing capital crimes.

death penalty makes the state a murderer, but life imprisonment makes the state a gay dungeon master.

I wonder

The recent Supreme Court judgment in Constitutional Appeal No 3/2006 Attorney General V Susan Kigula and 417 others implies that any time from now, 418 convicted murderers and robbers may walk out of prison as free men and women.

The death penalty hanging over their heads has been rendered unenforceable since the sentences were not carried out within three years after being confirmed by the final court.

Article 121(4) of the Constitution gives the President the prerogative to pardon a convict from the execution of the punishment imposed on him/her or to commute the sentence to a lesser one. The law does not impose a time limit within which the President is to exercise this prerogative.

In imposing a three-year limit in which to order execution or pardon of death row convicts, the Supreme Court has unduly impeded the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy. The President is being stampeded into releasing convicts who may not deserve to be released and ordering mass execution of convicts who may deserve leniency.

He will be blackmailed into pardoning death row convicts for fear of being labelled a sadist if he orders daily executions and effectively the death penalty will be practically non-existent.

It baffles me that self-appointed human rights activists always aggressively champion the pampering of criminals and not human rights and freedoms of innocent law abiding victims. Is this not being insensitive to the feelings of families of murdered victims, defiled babies, ritually murdered children and hard working citizens who are dispossessed of their property by thugs?

Is national security, peace and stability less significant than the so called rights of criminals? Donâ€™t criminals have a duty to be law abiding and to respect the rights and freedoms of others? Should we continue to condemn self-help/mob justice?

In man lies an amalgam of good and bad impulses constantly in conflict, the bad tending to prevail over the good. The death penalty is an indispensable restraint upon the forces of evil implanted in the minds of murderers, robbers and defilers. Ugandans aspire for peace, security of life and property.

Tiocfaidh Ã¡r lÃ¡

On one hand I believe in an eye for an eye, but at the same time - like someone else has said already- I don't think anyone has the right to take the life of someone else.

That said, with the overcrowding in prisons and whatnot it would be far cheaper and easier just to kill the main offenders, and if you've killed or raped then as far as I'm concerned you have no right to be rehabilitated anyway.

So I don't really know either, but I'm more towards being for it.

alajuneshley

its there own dam fault ..if the harm a nether person or a yong child its only fair that they get the same punishment or they just might do again and hurt a new family!!!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: