What is your opinion on the use of death penalty in U.S.A?

It reminds me of the US approach to slavery. Long after most countries had outlawed it, we continued to insist that it was an essential part of our way of life. Now we are one of the few who still kill people legally. It's barbaric, and makes us seem primitive to people in other countries. It's time to end it.

arvis3

The problem is that our justice systems sometimes convicts innocent people and once they are dead, it is very difficult to correct the error.

skip

I'm against it. It costs more than LWOP, it does not reduce the crime it is supposed to inhibit and the execution of the death warrant is inhumane. We have rules that require sick animals to be treated better.

However, if we must have it, how about a compromise? Do as they do in California. Have the death penalty for anyone who commits perjury that leads to a death sentence. That might cause DAs to think twice (or more) before putting dubious witnesses on the stand. In fact, if we might want to expand that law to include anyone who aids and abets someone in perjury - stick a needle in them too. I'd bet my mortgage that we'd have a change in attitude in courtrooms around the country.

Mary Jo W

i am all for the death penality. Fry the killers

Daniel

I support it. This isnt inhumane. These guys are serial murderers, serial rapists, terrorists and some commit unspeakable crimes they make horror movies about.

Buttercup=sweetness

I kind of go both ways with it. I think that however the victim was killed so should predator. They should suffer as they made the victim.
Killing them softly is no way to punish them.

nate

i think that if someone kills someone they shall be punished the same as the crime they committed. i absolutely support the death penalty. i even say no lethal injections, we should go back to the electric or do it like thancient romans and torture them. what they do is wrong and should be punished very harshly like they did to the victims families and the victim itself.

tjwhittle

It is my belief that nobody has the right to decide whether another should die, even if they have killed someone. There have been many instances where killers have reconciled with the families of their victims. Why deny the killer and the family an opportunity to get some closure. The death penalty should only be allowed if it is not possible to keep the person in jail for life. This made more sense in the past when it might have been easier for people to escape, but it is not anymore because it is so hard to escape from those maximum security prisons.

Graham C

This is a moral, personal question and it is very difficult to ascertain a definitive, clear answer.

But for pedophiles... I'd throw the switch myself.

Denise J

I like it if we are absolutely sure that person did the crime. Why should we taxpayers have to pay for this criminals room and board for the rest of his or her life? If there is any doubt, then my answer is NO.

Mat W

I'm against the death penalty. It is barbaric and for those that complain about paying for it, they are wrong in their thinking. It is cheaper to keep a person on death row than it is to deal with all the legal work (including appropriate appeals, court hearings, etc.) to get the approval needed to execute a person.

There are a number of people on death row that shouldn't be there. In fact, Houston (In the execution capital of the country - Texas) has had a number of problems with the revelation that there were numerous flaws in the crime lab, convicting a number of inocents of crimes they never committed. Newspaper article in the source.

Great Answers

We need to reform the death penalty.
Death penalty should only be issued in violent crimes with at least 1-3+ eye wittnesses. The number depending on pressence of DNA evidence only.
Once convicted by a jury of peers and the pressence of above evidence they should be executed with in 6 months

Nick K

I support death penalty for people who support death penalty.

janjaley

I am for the death penalty, in some instances, yet its almost non-existent truly, since the sentences turn out to be "life sentences". After the appeals processes, its for the most part, rarely in action. Just an opinion.

DOOM

I'm against it. Mistakes are made and people get wrongly convicted. You can't take back execution. For the record, I'm also against abortion.

squishy

It has been proven that with everyone we actually put to death using the death penality actually keeps 17 people from dying, cause of the deterant factor. Criminals think twice before killing someone cause of the death penalty. Also in support of the death penalty, The scriptures are full of scripture passages that talk about how if you kill someone, the only way to repay it is to give up your own life. So from a religious standpoint, the death penalty is a valid thing as far as god is concerned.
However, the way we use it right now is a joke, Many people on death row sit there and die in prison, cause of the jumbled up legal system. It is a joke, If people are on death row, they need to be taken through the system at a maximum of a year.
give em 1 year to prove they didn't really do it, and if they cant, they are done. We gotta get rid of this whole death row
people dying in prison of old age business.

brittme

What death penalty??? Most people on death row have been there for years and it will take years to have them put to death. Inmates have more rights than they should, in my opinion. They get 3 squares and a bed, cable, phones and who know what else and if say someone killed my 13 year old, why should they get to live in luxury while the person they hurt in living in dirt. What is wrong with that picture? Or someone gets all that because they felt they didn't have to follow the rules. So yes, I believe in the death penalty but no, I don't believe in all that goes with it.

One more thing I have thought about. If my child dies by the hands of someone else, why do I have to pay for the funeral and burial plot AND pay for the person who did it to watch HBO on Saturday night? Doesn't seem fair to me.

rcabletn

To support the death penalty is to nullify Mark 16:16 of the New Testament Bible. As long as someone lives there is hope for salvation. Execution denies the Great Commision of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Susan S

You asked an interesting question. The first thing is to find out how the system is currently practiced. Only then does it make sense to talk about what to change. (At least one person who answered (squishy) is misinformed about deterrence.)

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA available in less than 10% of all homicides and isnâ€™t a guarantee we wonâ€™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 states that donâ€™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.

You did ask whether we should change the way it is practiced. The greatest concern should be whether a system can be crafted where we know we will not execute innocent people, that is, to make the system error proof. And, whether it is worth it to society to raise the bar for sentences of death so high that the expense of the system makes no sense.
People confess to crimes they did not commit (including murder), DNA covers relatively few (at most 10%) of all homicides and forensics is still developing. Eyewitnesses make mistakes. We would have to replace "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "beyond any doubt" which would turn the criminal justice system on its head.

ShortieSoThick

i think it should be abolishes i know they usually give it to people who commited murder but just because they killed someone that doesnt give anyone the right to kill them i just dont think its morally right fight murder with murder?? no life in prison is what they should give instead of death

dh1272

Yes we should keep it. As long as the person being put on death row killed someone and those who will never get out of jail needs to be put to death. If they are that big of a threat to scoiety then they should not be walking the streets. We do however need to be sure the person being sentenced did in fact commit the crime wether through evidence or a jury.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: