[Adollobdeb]

Totally against it. I'm glad here in Europe we have permanently done away with it.

[Stovegeothnon]

I am totally against the death penalty. I think that the death penalty is just like saying murdering someone is okay just because they murdered someone.

It is the same as a popular old saying: An eye for an eye. But the only problem with that is, everyone ends up blind.

Also, it is morally wrong in my opinion, part of that coming from my Christian teachings that preach forgiveness.

P.S.-I would also vote for slave labor.

[Aozenee]

The death penalty seems just a need to satsify the mobs urge for blood, or rather, a result of the anger the mob feels. I can understand pain and the anger it produces, but I fail to see how the death penalty actually relieves pain, and especially for those who lost someone close.

One girl, raped, was of course deeply hurt, she was angry, and wished to murder the man that had done this to her. But the guy had committed suicide two days after, and she was still hurt and angry. Angry enough to want to kill. To me, this seems to illustrate that the death penalty brings no relief to those who were deeply hurt.

The death penalty also doesn't seem to do anything to deter other murders. The person who kills in hot-blood isn't thinking far in the future. A man who finds his woman with another probably isn't thinking at all rationally, and are under the complete control of their current emotions. The cold-blooded killer simply feels that he must be more careeful.

As always, justice is just a way to protect people's rights to happiness, and that to me still includes the criminals conditions for happiness. Their freedoms might have to be severely limited for the safety of others, but ending their life will do nothing to protect the conditions for other people's happiness.

Lastly, how do we know that they could've made another choice? I believe that if free will exists, it is most definitely very limited. To add to that, are people who having grown up in hard conditions, end up being sociopathic. Is it actually their fault that they lack empathy? In another case, a tumor was found pressing against the frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for inhibiting. So this man over time was losing control over his anger, ended up shooting three people, and then himself. The tumor wasn't discovered until autopsy.

There's so much we don't know that at least I think we shouldn't even be seriously suggesting the death penalty.

[QYD8eQ8F]

Im for the death penalty. If a person were to rape, murder,etc. Then they should be executed

[OgrGlgHu]

double post sorry

[Nundduedola]

Well Kinsao, it is a double standard-the state has the right to determine when to take a life, but individuals don't.

[Mister.levitra]

No. This must be totally pragmatic, and a question of elimination! (Harsh ... but bear with me....).

i) Elimination of the possibility of the individual ever repeating a heinous act (in or out of prison). Game over. No risk.
ii) Elimination of the horrendous cost of supporting a complete monster alive for the rest of their (perhaps totally unproductive) life.

I can see why you think that. But, what is to stop people wanting "revenge" because of that person's death. Say that your son, brother, husband, father, mother, or other close family member committed a terrible crime, would you feel that their life should end? Or, (as I think) would you rather see them doing labor every day just so they can live in the worst place imaginable?

How about this then, if you killed the murderer, would he ever have a chance to feel remorse, to think to himself, "What in GOD'S NAME made me do that, I could be livin the good life, have a family. But no, now I'm stuck in this S*** hole for the rest of my life."

Death shows mercy, in my opinion, to those who wish to die. If a murderer knows he's going to die as soon as he kills someone, he doesn't have to worry about regret or remorse. He knows the game is over as soon as he's caught. If he escapes the law, then he's free. If he gets detained, the game ends.

With the death penalty, these people can't lose. And what would you rather play, a game you where you can't lose, or one where you probably will?

[greeferweq]

The 'state' is made up of individuals. In the end it's a collective of individual people who come together to make a judgement on whether someone is going to live or die. And it's one individual who has the burden of administering the injection or working the trap door.

locking people up
extracting money from them (taxes)
requiring them to perform certain duties (jury service etc)
taking children away from their parents These - like punishments for crimes, including the death penalty as punishment - are all things done by the state/collective for the (alleged) reason of the good of society as a whole and the majority of individuals within it (locking someone up because they are a danger to others, taking a child away from its parents because its parents are harming it, taking taxes in order to fund services for the state population...) The death penalty indeed falls under that argument, because of course it would be unthinkable to allow a dangerous criminal their freedom, whether now or even 30 or 40 years down the line. But what does the death penalty provide in the way of benefit to other individuals in society that can't be provided by a life imprisonment? The whole thing is to protect people. Keeping someone in prison stops them from going out and killing or harming anyone again. Period.

I just feel that once you start to think of the 'state' as an entity separate from individuals, with its own powers, that becomes dangerous. I recognise that for practical reasons there are certain things in governance that have to be undertaken by a collective in order to work at all, but I still remain deeply uneasy about too much state control, and it pays to be very wary of the things that they already do control, even such things as jury service, the power of imprisonment, 'care' of children... and of course, taxes!

[ddwayspd]

oops accidentaly pushed for, i'm against.

It's just inhumane and a lot of other things. I rather people turn them into slave labor.

[inownsuipsy]

I would be totally for it but for the fact that no justice system is anywhere near perfect and the chances of executing an innocent person are just way too high.

I don't really go for the whole "Its state sponsored murder" argument. Frankly when I read about the violence and barbarity in some of the crimes commited these days I think it would be totally OK to execute some of these guys. But then I'd rather see a hundred murderers get life sentences than see a single innocent person executed by mistake.

[triardwonvada]

I'm totally against it. Period.

The government is doing the same thing as the killer. Premeditated murder. That makes them no better than the one getting put to death, in my eyes. Besides, it's no punishment. A lifetime in solitary is much harder for someone to deal with than simply being put to sleep.

Besides, the risk is too great that you're killing someone who isn't really guilty. At least it's getting better now with DNA testing and all. Just think of all the people who have been freed from death row over their innocence proven via DNA. What if those people had been killed? It's just awful to even think about it. And think about the innocent who have died before there was any DNA tests.

The only time I justify killing someone is in self-defense. When you or someone you love's life is being threatened. Even then, I think it's better to inflict some non-fatal blow to stop someone, if at all possible.

I just value life too much. I think it's horrible to even consider killing another human, no matter what they've done.

I agree completely.

[cemDrymnVem]

I am totally against. I think Clawn put it best - executing a criminal is punishing murder with murder. I don't care how barbaric a crime is, to kill that person makes us no better than them. Regardless of whether they are capable of learning that lesson, it is the responsibility of a civilised state to try to rehabilitate criminals. So I believe in imprisonment, but I think prisoners should be treated humanely regardless of the severity of their crime, and I think they should pay for their own upkeep by working.

[Hetgvwic]

Welcome back mikecash, couldn't stay away?

[mr.calisto]

Pretty much .... yes!

Sometimes .... no!

I have to go with Tsuyoiko & Clawn here, no justification for the death penalty holds enough water.

The only cases where there is absolutely no doubt would be when caught in the act. & even in those cases for me killing someone is only justified as direct self defence or in defence of others.

[legal-advicer]

there is absolutely no doubt the person committed a brutal crime and should not ever be released, death is OK with me.

Isn't there pretty much always at least some doubt?

[biannaruh]

I also find that sites anti death penalty are based on facts and figures and ones that are pro like to use emotional response. I can't help but wonder if that has to do which emotions a crime some would deem worthy of capital punishment evokes. Murder, rape, crimes like these really dig into the most primal and base emotions in people, so I'm not surprised pro-death penalty sites use it. It's usually pretty effective.

I'm against the death penalty, but for more reasons than how barbaric it is. I barely trust the government to get my mail to me on time, let alone kill a person.

[Bgfbukpf]

I voted not sure.

In the abstract, it is easy for me to be pro death penalty, but this month we are going to kill convicted four time murderer "Tookie" Williams in California. It is not abstract anymore. It is totally real. The guy claims to be founder of the Crips gang and claims to be rehabilitated. He has written childrens books designed to keep kids out of gangs and has been mentioned to the Nobel panel for a peace prize.

But he shotgunned a clerk twice in the back as he lay on the floor face down. He killed a husaband, wife and daugter in their house. If any man should die, it is the one that could do something like this.

Precisely. My heart bleeds for him. Nice guy! He should go on writing childrens' books (and making a buck) whilst your tax dollars feed him.

Ask the friends and relatives of the dead family and the clerk how they feel.

Death penalty cases cost significantly more than the upkeep of one prisoner for life, even in maximum security. The death penalty also does not deter anyone from committing crimes. In the US, it's application is sporadic and random.

Agreed. Agreed in all respects.

But this is not IMO a question of deterrence. The death penalty has probably never (It's absence certainly hasn't!) deterred anyone from crime. Just look at the eighteenth century - when you could be hung for stealing a bread crust!

No. This must be totally pragmatic, and a question of elimination! (Harsh ... but bear with me....).

i) Elimination of the possibility of the individual ever repeating a heinous act (in or out of prison). Game over. No risk.
ii) Elimination of the horrendous cost of supporting a complete monster alive for the rest of their (perhaps totally unproductive) life.

But bear in mind ... the qualifications of my original post apply. This applies to the completely incorrigible individual who has been caught and convicted ... with no doubt whatsoever. Therefore the first line of this quote does not need to apply; those costs are usually associated with the plethora of appeals and legal costs/fees that go hand-in-hand with them! (Often at public expense.)

With "no doubt whatsoever" - appeal would not come into the question.

Exit: Lots of lawyers making a buck on the deal.

What's the cost of actually killing (Yeah! That's what we're doing here, folks!) someone? The cost of a bullet, a few kilovolts, a squirt of gas.....? Fify bucks? Twenty? Ten? ..... $1.99?

This sounds horrible, I know. It is! It's not nice. It's not supposed to be.

....but sometimes you just have to take a deep breath, look around at the world and say ....

... Y'Know ....!


Sadly,

ジョン

[bestgenpower]

there is absolutely no doubt the person committed a brutal crime and should not ever be released, death is OK with me. Why should my taxes go to feed,clothe,provide medical care, (cable TV) , etc.. I'd rather spend my hard earned dollars on people who deserve help.

Frank

But how much of your taxes go into the constant appeals for inmates on Death Row? Some of these can go on for years, and in some cases the offender has died of natural causes before the appeals process has been completed

With the greatest respect, I do not think that the questions posed in the poll were sufficiently qualified. And surely, some qualification has to be present in a question of such importance.

I did think about making other chioces available, but then you could end up with a very long list, so I went for the KISS approach (Keep It Simple, Stupid). It is probably better for people qualify their responses on what can be a very complicated subject.

[Opinion_counts]

I can see why you think that. But, what is to stop people wanting "revenge" because of that person's death. Say that your son, brother, husband, father, mother, or other close family member committed a terrible crime, would you feel that their life should end? Or, (as I think) would you rather see them doing labor every day just so they can live in the worst place imaginable?

How about this then, if you killed the murderer, would he ever have a chance to feel remorse, to think to himself, "What in GOD'S NAME made me do that, I could be livin the good life, have a family. But no, now I'm stuck in this S*** hole for the rest of my life."

Death shows mercy, in my opinion, to those who wish to die. If a murderer knows he's going to die as soon as he kills someone, he doesn't have to worry about regret or remorse. He knows the game is over as soon as he's caught. If he escapes the law, then he's free. If he gets detained, the game ends.

With the death penalty, these people can't lose. And what would you rather play, a game you where you can't lose, or one where you probably will?

No, no.

You see, your argument to my way of thinking, actually presupposes a need for revenge and/or punishment!

I'm not interested in that at all. I just want to get rid of garbage that has done harm! I'm not interested in wether or not a murderer or any other miscreant worthy of my death-dealing attention suffers or feels victimised in any way (if I did - I wouldn't propose the death penalty ... but all kinds of Mediaeval torture or something!).

I just want them ..... gone!

As for victims using the death penalty as "revenge" (which I agree, should not be the case. Especially if you've arrested the wrong guy!) ... then I would merely argue that victims' families do not sit on the bench ... and do not pass sentence; the courts do.

As I've stressed in each of my posts - I have no intention of running around "knocking everybody off" at the drop of a hat because they haven't paid their parking tickets! It would be an extreme measure reserved for absolutely confirmed, no brainer, no doubt convictions ... in cases of particular obscenity.

... but then ....! Into the trash can!

Perhaps you would see a lot less people executed under this philosophy than you do now! (I believe that annually, the state of Texas executes more people than any other Nation on earth! Several of these folks ultimately turn out to be innocent!)



ジョン

[Trebbinsa]

You have this 'moral' standard that says 'it's wrong to kill someone' - and then... someone who commits murder... as punishment they are condemned to death? That doesn't make sense to me. If killing someone is wrong, then it's wrong whoever does it. To say otherwise is making like certain people have more of a right than otherwise to judge who should live and who should die, and I think that's very suspect indeed, to put it mildly.

I am undecided on the death penalty. I don't think the arguments above are particularly valid though. In our society, we are bound by the laws of the land and be will punished if we break them.

The state has plenty of powers that indivduals don't, and that we would find morally wrong if an indivdual did them, such as

locking people up
extracting money from them (taxes)
requiring them to perform certain duties (jury service etc)
taking children away from their parents

These are all powers the state has but would be morally wrong if we as indivudals excercised. So I don't think you can use this argument against capital punishment.

There may be other reasons, personally I think the burden of proof is a powerful argument given terminating someones life is pretty terminal and doesn't give us the chance to correct any micarriages of justice down the line.

Comes down to numbers at the end - I'd be happy to see 99.99% as a accurate conviction rate... then is 99.9% good enough? 99%? 95%? Hard to know where to draw the line.