Are you for or against the death penalty?

I'm totally for the death penalty.In 1980 the freeway killer william bonin murdered 3 of my friends.
James micheal mcabe
Daren kendrick
Dennis frank fox
He was executed on feb, 23 1996 at san quinten prison.We through a big party for his trip to hell.

I'm against it for several reasons, (mainly practical rather than ethical to be honest):

-To kill a criminal punishes not only them, but their family and friends. (This I think is probably the single most persuasive argument) Whatever a son, daughter, parent or sibling has done, it is near enough impossible to detach oneself enough as to be indifferent to their death. This is particularly the case where the condemned person is a parent of a young child, incapable of understanding the situation fully. With prison a relative can at least visit the prisoner.

-It is very easily abused for political ends- victims of the death penalty in many countries are guilty only of opposing a particular regime. In the middle east girls as young as fifteen have been executed for "crimes against chastity".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm

It is often used as a tool of fear, oppression and control by governments, and is disproportionately used against specific groups in society (e.g. the black population in South Africa, the poorer classes almost everywhere.) There is no way to ensure that it is carried out in an impartial manner, and is scarily open to abuse as a way of cleansing "undesirables" from society. There is no better way to rid yourself of a political threat than to place threat of execution (often on a fabricated, exagerrated or grossly manipulated charge) on your opponents.
Interesting article on race and the death penalty:
http://www.mumia2000.org/race&injustice.html

- I don't believe that any human being has the right to decide who deserves to live and who to die according to some arbitrary principle.
Moral values change, and are culturally specific, many offences which would have been capital offences at one time, or still are in certain countries, are no longer even crimes (adultery, homosexuality for example). Whether someone faces the death penalty can depend very much on accident of birth.

-It has a brutalising affect on society, and encourages a sort of state-sanctioned bloodlust. The sick t-shirts sold at the execution of Timothy McVeigh and the baying and cheering of execution crowds in Saudi Arabia, not to mention the numerous imaginative ways man has found to carry out the execution process, do nothing to persuade me that executions create a morally upstanding population. Listen to it- thats not a celebration of the judicial process, its pure animal lust for blood.
This is vile:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/18/mcveigh_death_tshirts_for_sale/

Many serial killers see themselves as vigilantes, cleansing society of perceived sin through violence. Or they enjoy lording the power of life and death over other "lesser" beings.The morals are different- the principle seems much the same. It makes me feel quite sick to feel I live in a world where people can cheer as a man dies, no matter how evil he may have been. A truly civilised society should raise itself above the level of a killer, not resort to its own self-righteous version of his perverted bloodlust.

-I see it mainly as a process carried out for the satisfaction of the victims family and of popular society than a punishment as such. Many killers are unafraid of death, even welcoming it. (And I don't understand the logic of "humane" processes such as lethal injection - isn't that how we put an ill old dog to sleep? Seems strangely kind.) Murder still occurs in countries where the death penalty is carried out, often on a greater scale than those where it is not. Famously the US states that use the death penalty are still those with the highest homicide rates- see also "no deterent" argument below. Whilst the feelings of the victim and the public at large should always be a consideration when sentencing a criminal, they should not be the sole reasoning for a sentence. Whilst I have total sympathy for victims of violent crime, they and their families are in a heightened emotional state. Justice should be calm, rational and impartial, not powered by hysteria and personal emotion.

-Its irreversible. A prisoner can be released if he is later found not guilty. A dead man is dead forever.

-It can make martyrs of criminals. Particularly in the case of terrorists and political figures such as Saddam Hussein. Some people are effectively more dangerous dead than they are alive.

-Its not a particularly effective deterrent http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/54068

- Although I do think prisons are far too comfortable in the western world, with serial killers, or perpetrators of particularly unusual or horrific crimes, there is often something to be gained from analysing their reasons and psychology in the hope that similar crimes might be prevented in future. This is generally easier to do with someone who's still alive. We tend to dehumanise violent criminals and call them "monsters"- whilst this might be understandable, its not especially helpful in the long term. Its important to remember serial killers are human beings like the rest of us- various elements- genetic, psychological, social cause them to commit crimes. This doesn't excuse them of course, but if we can analyse these reasons, advancing our understanding of criminal behaviour, our chances of identifying risk factors and preventing future crime increase dramatically.

- To a certain extent I don't really see how death is a punishment, particularly something such as death by lethal injection. Unless one believes in hell. In which case the convicted will be going there anyway, whether now or in twenty years time. Given the choice between twenty years in prison and an instant painless death, I think I'd probably opt for death.


Interesting essay on topic:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR010031997?open&of=ENG-312


EDIT: Castrate, I feel that "what about the family of the victim" argument, is slightly beside the point in this case. I don't believe that concern for the family of the perpetrator of a crime and concern for the family of the victim are mutually exclusive.
The execution of a murderer does not bring their victim back to life either- In a sense I see it as a matter of damage limitation. The family of a murderer do not deserve punishment any more than the family of the victim.

One of my favorite quotes ever comes from the father of a victim of the Oklahoma bombing who protested against the execution of Timothy McVeigh:

"If I'm going to forgive him, I need him to be alive."

I personally think it counterproductive to promote ideals of revenge within the justice system. Justice and vengeance are two entirely seperate things, one is based on animalistic hatred, the other on a humanitarian desire to make the world a better place.

Totally pro death penalty. As long as there is absolutly no doubt as to the culprit then yes.
Murderers should be killed. Rapists and child abusers castrated. They need to be really afraid of the consequences.

No.
It's revenge, not justice.

Better a hundred guilty men live then one innocent man be executed.

Please note that it is wrong for an individual to take vengeance (Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. -Romans 12:19). On the other hand, it is equally wrong for the government to refuse the just punishment of the guilty.

Death is prescribed as the punishment of those that commit murder. See Genesis 9:6- "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

God delegates the responsibility for punishing evil to the civil government. See Romans 13:1-5 - "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers...for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

I am totally pro death penalty. I dont think staying in prison for life is more punishment. They feel like they got away with murder if you dont execute them. Their victim is dead and they are still alive living each and every day with three meals per day, a place to sleep and plenty of other people to live with. The ones that get life dont sit around moping over their particular cases saying,,"Oh, how I wish I hadnt commited murder, Oh, I am being punished severly, I would rather have been executed!" No, they are sitting around saying,"I got away with murder and the dumb b*****ds think they are punishing me with free food and a free place to live." They have TV, newspapers, magazines, jobs to keep them busy, gyms, college courses (paid for by YOU), computers, and almost any resource they need to write books, or anything else they want to do. You arent punishing those people by giving them life. IF they actually had to do hard labor, i.e., pick cotton, grow their own food, bust big rocks into little rocks, build roads by hand, pull weeds along the highways, pickup trash, general labor for the city they are close to, anything to make their lives miserable I MIGHT agree to the life sentence. I say kill them and get them out of our lives.

I think the death penalty is ridiculous. What sort of human beings are we to put someone to death legally. It is inhuman and medieval and most nations ban it.People need to have the chance to be rehabilitated ,for that is the purpose of prisons.

Some people, because of the criminals acts, do not deserve to live with the rest of the normal population.

The death penalty is just.

i am for the death penalty if a person takes another humans life they deserve to die. they need to suffer like there victims. I would be the first one there to help them flip the switch or inject or what ever, then say go to h##l.

Ever sat in an electric chair? I have. I had the strange opportunity while working on a video production a prison in Tennessee. I didn't get any feelings of for or against, really. What overwhelmed me was the thought that we can do better. As an intelligent, progressive society, putting people in chairs (or on gurneys) and killing them in what is clearly revenge and not punishment seems so far beneath what we're capable of. We all want people to pay for their crimes, but we don't run someone off the road after they nearly cause an accident; we don't trash someone's house after they commit burglary; we don't steal someone's money after they've defrauded us. Incarceration, more than anything else, is a means to make sure the criminal cannot commit the crimes. Incarcerations works for murderers, too, so long as they're let out.

Add to that 50 years of extensive research which has never proven that the death penalty is in any way a deterrent, and it doesn't make much sense outside of revenge.

I am 100% pro death penalty. Some say it is cruel and unusual, well, cruel, maybe,(they were cruel to their victims) but if they would do it more often it would not be so unusual. If given death they should be dead in less than a month. Not still alive 18 years later.

It is justified for murders, rapers and paedophiles.

However current methods are too humane. The Middle East has it proper, public stoning ect. But only when the case has been proved beyond ANY doubt.

Against....doesnt anyone else find it absurd that we punish murder with murder?

Against.

This is an emotive subject, and not one where I will change anyone's mind, nor will you change mine.

Every society has flaws, and the people in power always want to pass the blame. I accept the judgement of the country where I am living, provided that the accused has had a fair and full hearing. Yes, even Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. Even Adolf Hitler. There is a wonderful statue outside the Old Bailey, of Justice, with her sword, her scales, and a blindfold over her eyes. Justice should not cave in to the loudest voice, but remain fair and unbiased at all times. If your country or state allows the death penalty then agree with it or move elsewhere. Likewise, if your country or state has abolished the death penalty, then some bleeding-heart story is no excuse for calling for someone's head.

I live in Dunblane. My son is the same age as the children who got shot and killed. He could have been one of the victims. In hindsight it is obvious to everybody that Thomas Hamilton was capable of his crime and that he felt agrieved, but at the time nobody did anything to stop him. He killed himself. But if he had survived I would not call for the death penalty for him. I would maybe have killed him myself, but I would never expect our legal system to bow to popular pressure feuled by the media. his death did not bring back any of the children, and their parents still grieve. His death accomplished nothing positive, and if he had been executed it still would achieve nothing positive. That is why I am against the death penalty.

Now, sending them to mine ore on Mars - that's appealing.

EDIT** I note that anyone who is against the death penalty, despite their persuasive arguments, has been rated down. This is petty and beneath people who hold the courage of their convictions. Shame on you.

Eye for and eye

Killing killers makes us no better than them.

I'm against it.

Edit- I think it's entirely about being "better" than them. These people are monsters, but by lowering ourselves to their level, we become ourselves dehumanized. Society gains nothing from killing its murderers, except a false sense of justice. Because killing these people, as satisfying as it may feel, is not justice. It is thinly veiled revenge.

As to sticking them in jail, I'm fine with that. You seem to make jail out to be some sort of five-star resort. It is most certainly not. A life sentence in jail is, I think, much worse than simply being offed. The prospect of rotting your life away behind bars, instead of a quick, painless death is the weightier of the two punishments, if you ask me.

Which is to say nothing of the many other problems surrounding the USA's death penalty, such as long wait times, exectutions of juveniles and people with severe mental disorders, etc, etc. Though, these people (http://www.aclu.org/capital/index.html) are more than happy to say it for me.

If there is no reasonable doubt as to guilt, I am for the death penalty. However, if there is any doubt at all, then my answer would be against. You cannot undo a mistake. I would not consider anything like an insanity plea as a reasonable doubt. If the person committed the crime and there is physical evidence to prove it without any doubt. Execute them, no temporary insanity. Even if they were insane, their genetic material needs to be removed from the gene pool.

I am for it. In the bible it says an eye for an eye and i think that if more ppl know that they were going to die if they killed someone then maybe they would not do it any more or at least not as much. Also we as tax payer spend way to much money for prisoners that will never get out they are overcrowed so do us all a favor start getting rid of the ones that have life sentences, they aren't going to be "healed" and move on.

I do not believe in the death penalty. My answer is based on my beliefs as a christian so I am hoping I do not get any crazy comments. My opinion is also mine and I am not imposing it on others.

I do not believe in the death penalty because I do not believe that we have any right to take anyones life. Just as the criminal committed a crime we are doing the same in killing a person. Who are we to decided how someone dies and the reason they should die? That is my view and I can go on and on but there is not enough space. Two wrongs do not make a right!

Absolutely, flatly and loudly NOT. Killing, except in self-defence, is murder, sanctioned by the law or not. If you kill criminals, you descend to their level.

I think it is morally wrong, legally unsatisfactory, and pragmatically has not been shown to cut crime.

I am against it.

I'm against the death penalty for a number of reasons.

1. Killing is wrong! (and if you do it we will kill you!) This is a moronic message to be teaching our children. How wrong it is seems to depend entirely on who is doing it and in what context! Bullshit!

2. It costs much more to execute one prisoner than to keep them alive for life in prison. The average cost is 1.4 million dollars per executed prisoner in legal fees alone, plus at least 10 years of prison housing at an average of 25 thousand dollars a year (total $1,650,000) v's about 25 thousand dollars a year to keep them in prison, even for 50 years that would still only be $1m !! Life in prison is cost effective!

3. Alarmingly large numbers of death row inmates in the U.S have been found to be innocent upon more thorough investigation of their cases. The system is killing innocent people along with the guilty. It must be stopped!!

4. There is no evidence that the death penalty is any kind of deterrent against violent crime!

5. The death penalty is about one thing only-REVENGE! It reinforces the concept of violence as a means to solve problems in the minds of everyone, and violence doesn't solve the problem;violence IS the problem!!

I'm completely against it.. only God can decide on who shall live and who shall die. It is not a decision that should be put in a human's hands

How can ''you'' justify Murder with Murder??

Yes I believe that in exreme cases for example serial killers & terrorist mass murderers who show no remorse. If they can take innocent lives without compunction then they should be executed and the public should be allowed to attend if they so wish. to witness justice being done Why should these fiends live on at the publics expense some enjoying the adoration of fanclubs(charles manson) and getting married(Richard Ramirez) or maybe escape to kill again as in the case of Ted Bundy etc etc Of course the case against them must be completely iron clad and perhaps there could be a public referendum in such cases

It depends on what the crime was, or how many times the person commited the crime, such as a child molester or rapist, should be warned, second time, death sentence, someone like saddam husain, bin ladin, etc AUTOMATIC death sentence.

I am against the death penalty...let that person suffer with having to live with the thought of them taking someone elses life. That is the cruelest punishment to me.

The prisoner is not the only one who makes mistakes sometimes.

So, it's wrong.

i believe in making suffer, rather than the death penalty.

For example: I think that a rapist should be held in prison forever without any rights. Instead being killed because, honestly, that is like getting out easy.

When you kill someone, there is always the chance that the person might have been wrongly convicted. That's a hell of thing to say "oops" over. Then again, innocent people are slaughtered every moment across the globe and there is nothing done about it. I leave the laws of this world to the powers that be. I think death is any easy way out for some criminals, especially serial killers, they should reflect about all the havoc they have caused and live with that fact until they die. Too bad Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison.

I feel that murder is murder, no matter what you call it.

I am completely for it, no doubt in my mind.

We don't need these bastards wasting away on our tax dollars, staying fit, doing drugs, selling drugs, enjoying same-sex sex,killing or harming others that WILL eventually get out of prison, getting or giving tattoos and the such.

An eye for an eye is the perfect philosophy for life. This is definatly human nature. Suppose we were all still cavemen, if your neighbor killed your son:

Would you let it go?
Would you kill them in response?
Would you go to the extreme and kill THEIR son?
Or would you forgive and forget?

If you said yes to the first or last option than you are eather a complete idiot or don't have the guts to kill.

We don't need to spend our taxes on people spending life in prison, there should be no such thing. Death penalty or drop it. Plain and simple.

AGAINST!...

In principle I am in favor of the death penalty because I want us all to be safe in our environments. However, in practice I am opposed to it because:
1) people who can afford expensive attorneys and expert witnesses to attest they are somehow not responsible - do not get the death penalty. Poor (socioeconomically challenged?)people are far more likely to get the death penalty. "...Around 90 percent of all death penalty defendants cannot afford representation, and are forced to use a public defender. The stories of incompetent public defenders in capital crimes range from one lawyer failing to ask the jury to spare his clients life, to another lawyer actually sleeping in court during the trial...." (from "The Right Time for a Death Penalty Moratorium" By Christopher George, AlterNet. Posted July 8, 2003).

2) too many people convicted of crimes have been exonerated by DNA and other evidence, so I have no confidence that the right person is being convicted and executed. In the past 30 years, 122 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row in the US alone!

I don't think anyone convicted on circumstantial evidence alone should get the death penalty -- there should be some kind of forensic evidence or an unimpeachable confession (NOT a John Mark Karr type confession!) The US Supreme Court said: "Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts." That's a strong statement but it isn't implemented! Until this becomes the standard in the judicial system, how can we justify the death penalty?

I am against the death penalty, because I feel for a person to get the death penalty, they deserve much, much more punishment than death

Yes.

I agree. Some people can't be rehabilitated and are just nothing, but a burden on socity as well as a danger. Plus some of the crimes they commit are just so henious that the only punishment that will fit is death. As to it being barbaric and painfull, that little needle going into their arm and that slight warm senssion is no more painful for them then getting the same thing when you have surgery. And after what they did who cares? I don't. I think a needle's too good for them.
For those that say prisionis for rehabilitation it is not, it's for punishment. If they want to be rehabilitated let them do it on their own time and on their own dime. Not mine. To me the whole thing about in house programs is a joke. Just one more way for sociopaths and manipulitive personalities to learn how to work the system. Believe me, my brother learned well how to cry on cue and say he was so sorry in those groups. It's how gets probation so often.

against because what if an innocent person got the death penalty. there are lots of innocent people who get found guilty of crimes they didnt commit. And anyway i dont think killing anybody should ever be legal.

I am against the death penalty. I am against it because say in the case of a murderer, killing the murderer would be just as bad as the murderer killing someone else.The convict would have great emotional pain if you didnt use death penalty, giving a bigger consequence, because in the death penalty, the convict would not feel anything. Then, the families who did not do anything would suffer.

Yes, it definitely exists in many places.

No opinioon, Just trying to get on the AB leaderboard.

I think it should definitely be used when a person is guilty of a heinous crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Why make the murderer/rapist sit in jail for the rest of his natural life and make US pay for it with our hard earned money? That's bullshit if you ask me. Also, what better deterrent than "an eye for an eye"?

As Ron White puts it: I'm for the death penalty and in Texas we have the death penalty and we use it. if you come to texas and kill somebody we will kill you back. they are trying to pass a law through the texas legislature that would speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where there are more than three credible eyewitnesses...other states are trying to abolish the death penalty my state is putting in an express lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tst8sIfrNvg&feature=related

Prisons are in place to keep criminals away from society, not to kill them. That's too much of a weighty decision for any human to make.

Disagree.

It depends upon the crime and if there is absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of the person. Some people will continue to kill as long as they can get away with it. Serial killers, serial rapist, those who plan and cold heartedly take someone's life, and especially those who would commit these, and other crimes against children, the most vulnerable and innocent of society, should be dealt with as quickly as possible. I have no sympathy for anyone who is executed because they committed unspeakable acts against a child. I can feel sympathy for the family of the person facing execution, but I also feel for the families of their victims. The family of the prisoner has years to come to terms with the impending death of their loved one, the family of the victims, however, simply have to learn to deal with it after the fact.
At the same time, if I were faced with the task of actually helping send someone to death row, I am not sure I could do it...I guess it would depend upon what they did and the circumstances involved. For crimes committed in the heat of the moment...most of the time, I think life imprisonment would suffice.

as soon as they are found guilty, take em out back and have a public hanging.

I believe that if someone takes anothers life for a foolish reason, which in most cases it is they deserve to die just as they inflicted death among another individual. I mean if someone was being assaulted or sexually molested and killed someone in self defense then I would feel differently. Overall though I think that someone who kills another individual without necessary measures of protecting themselve in self defense deserves the death penalty, sometimes I often feel that they should have the same act of violence inflicted upon them as they did in the act of taking that persons life. Again this is my opinion.

Eye for an eye unless it was self-defense.

You put them in prison, citizen's tax dollars provides for them till they get out. Welfare for murderers.