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

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.

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 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.

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.

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 kidn of against it. I thought about it for a while. Really, to punish someone, you have to make them sad and wish they didnt do it. They can't really be sad when they're dead, now can they? Also, does it really sound right to say "You took someone's life away, now we're gonna take your away because killing is bad. Now, get on this bed so we can kill you." How come the police can kill someone if the person killed someone else, but a normal person can't kill someone if that person killed someone that they loved? It all just doesn't make sense!

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'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.

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.

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?

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

I am very ambiguous toward the death penalty. As for one, a very close relative of mine corresponded with a death row mate and through the letters they shared, my close relative told me that they had come to know a very decent human being who had regretted the gesture that sent him to death row. That being said, I think it is so sad to throw a life away. In all, we are all humans, whether you be muslim, jewish, arab, black, mexican, indian or whatever, in core we are all human. Now, do I believe that some people can just be born evil, no, but I do believe that some people can be just plain evil and that's when I change sides. Example, the lady that killed Selena, awful woman, and still to this day denies everything, she knows what she did in my opinion. So if I were to resume my side I am sorry to say I am too ambiguous because I think human life is worth too much because WE ONLY HAVE ONE LIFE, screw the hocus pocus reincarnation believers cause I don't think we're stupid enough to come back here haven't met a dead person yet that has, then I have to say given human life is worth a lot, if someone shows they have no sympathy for human life well then, (example Charles Manson, Jack, the ripper)the death penalty seems a good precaution cause we don't want a homicidal maniac running the streets, but I believe only .1% of today's criminals are that ''whacked''.

Eye for and eye

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

AGAINST!...

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.

I think it depends on what society decides is appropriate. I personally think capital punishment is wrong and should be abolished, in Israel it only exists for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

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

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.

Yes, it definitely exists in many places.

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.

believe or agree? I believe it exist, in a judicial or an extra-judicial way it exist in many countries.

No, not all Americans are from Texas.

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!

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

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

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.

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 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.

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'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

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

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.

Against: The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response. The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of 'pay-back.' The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Well why not lower ourseleves to the discusting level of thinking we have the control to take away a life just like they did. Just in case that was unclear, I was being sarcastic :D Note: I like this question. Now. For my answer and reasonings. I am (as you've probably drawn the conclusion already) against the death penalty. I do however understand why people would be for it, but it simply doesn't fit in with my personal morals or belief. I find it extremley hypocritical. I mean we're killing someone, because they killed someone. Does having a reason for murder make it just? I think not. I mean, let me put it to you this way. If you saw a man murder your mother, but he wasn't captured (but the state was aware he was the killer and was currently looking for him), and one day, you saw him and decided to avenge your mother. So you killed him. would you not still go to jail for murder? Does the state killing someone make it not a killing? Shouldn't we stand up and be the better people and set an example for the world by saying "No, we will not lower ourselves to their actions. We will stand up for life". I believe that they would honestly get more pain from staying in prison. Just because if they're dead, then they're removed from the hell of prison. They'll be more peacfull and happy dead than they would be alive. Keep them in confinement, so they don't have human interaction ever. They should get no mail, no phone calls, no visitors. Only enough food to keep them alive. No TV. Nothing. They should be TREATED as they're dead. But they should not actually be killed. Why do you think people in prison commit suicide? Because after a while they would RATHER be dead.

As far as I'm concerned, imprisonment is by FAR the crueller punishment. To remove from an entity the choice to end its own life seems far more offensive (and high-handed, and arrogant, and draconian, and playing deity) than to take the existence itself... i realise this is not a decision as such; i leave it to karma and the consciences of those who seem to deem psychological torture acceptable. Exile or death is far kinder. If one has offended society enough that they are unwanted by it (wrongly or rightly) they should at least have the choice to end their existence should they be at a point where they can for whatever reason no longer own it.

I am against the death penalty, because it is murder. But I do think some of these people should be in prison forever. Maybe in prison in the middle of the ocean, where they can't escape. Maybe that's sound a little mean, but some of these people have sick minds.

For it the world is over-populated.

Food for thought, a true story. I am a Minnesotan (if that's a word). The last person that was put to death here, (hung in the basement level of the courthouse), had throughout the trial proclaimed strongly that he was innocent. Something went wrong (I believe the rope was to long), and they ended up holding his feet up off the ground for a long time, (I think I read 45 minutes til he died, that seems a stretch- but you could look it up if it really interests you), as he twisted around strangling. Bottom line, the real killer confessed 6 months later. There has never been capitol punishment under Minnesota law since.

I am against the death penalty. Murder isn't a hard enough punishment, not to mention it's not right. No one has the right to take away somebody's life. No matter how severe the crime that person commited. Plus why would you want to end that person's life just like that and not have to endure any pain, who hurt your family or someone close to you? Another reason, is that what IF the person who is being sentenced to the death penalty is innocent? What IF you take an innocent person's life? What if later that person that was executed, was later to be found innocent? That person won't be able to come back to life, will they?

For the death Penalty only if there is no doubt the person is guilty. I believe if people where aware that there is a much higher price to pay for crimes they would think twice before committing them. In a situation though where it may have been self defense or an accident then NO against it.

I am against the death penalty, because if some did something really really wrong, they should go to jail, but i think everyone deserves a second chance, and no one deserves to die on account of their actions.

I am against the death penalty. It does not have the deterrant effect folks seem to think, countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without. As to punishment, if the purpose is to teach, well there's not much teaching done if they're dead. and if the purpose is to satisfy a taste for revenge, well, isn't that a trait we ought to be extinguishing rather than encouraging? If killing is wrong, and my government, representing me, is killing, aren't my hands also dirty. Do we really want to say that killing is wrong, except when the government says it's ok? Killers do need to be removed, for good. But what's so wrong with life sentences that mean till you're dead, jails that have no recreation at all. If you can't play nice you don't get to play, and you don't earn any treats. But just because "they" killed does that mean that we "get to" too? Is it wrong or isn't it?

Well, if someone kills someone else. Then yes, they need to be killed. But, if they don't kill someone else then they just need prison time.

I'm completly against it. The bible strictly says, "Thou shalt not kill". It does not give man the right to go ahead and do so. God says that, Vengeance is His. I know that God forgive these people to, but alot of them need to stay locked up for life, but still ponder what they did, and allow God to show them the right way, and ask for forgiveness.

Against.

I am for the death penalty. I just don't understand why people are so against it. We're sopposed to be humane to someone who has committed a heinous crime? Why? And then the same people who are against the death penalty think that killing innocent unborn children is a "right". What did the child do, except be conceived? Whereas when the death penalty is an issue, the person has done something to more than deserve it.

I believe first and foremost that we are not God and do not have the right to act as God. We can punish them but we do not have the right to murder someone. The death penalty is nothing but a fancy name for murder.

I am for it!

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, and if any of you disenters had had a child or a close family member brutally murdered you would probably change your minds. Living your life knowing that the person is going to be back on the street in a considerably short time is more punishment to the grieving than the killer. How hard can it be most of them live a better life INSDE than they did out. 8-12 years and freedom WOW Hard time, We grieve for LIFE

I am 100% PRO death penalty. The main problem with it not being a deterrent anymore is, we have made it so humane, that criminals do not fear the death sentence. I mean, in most states now, all they do is go to sleep. And, most prisoners know that if they stay on death row long enough, their chances greatly improve that their sentence will be commuted to life in prison. When we had the electric chair, a lot of criminals actually feared the chair. I know this, because my brother is a lifer, though not for violent crimes. His attitude has always been, and these are his exact words, "if I go to prison, at least I get 3 meals a day, exercise, t.v. room, and I don't have to get up and go listen to a smart a** boss threatening to fire me for every little thing". I do not condone my brothers attitude or actions, but he has been thru some terrible things in his life that did have a terrible effect on his outlook. But, he has known several death row inmates who have no fear of their punishment.

Against, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, two wrongs don't make a right and secondly, how can you be sure that the person sentenced to death is absolutley guilty. There have been a few high profile cases in this country (UK), where people have been wrongly accused of serious crimes they didn't commit and subsequently released from prison. If we had the death penalty in this country, they would have been unlawfully murdered.

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 can't decide to be honest. I think there might be a good reason for it but I dislike the death penalty anyway. It doesn't matter who stands trial, I felt uncomfortable with the hanging of Saddam Hussein. It just makes me feel sick. I am not against the death penalty either though. How's that for a non-answer?

I agree with the death penalty. Although many people might rate me down for this, because of it being unconstitutional, But if it was a family member such as my son or parents, the death penalty would not be enough for me. I would want that person to suffer 10x more than he/she made me and the rest of my family suffer. Also the "eye for an eye" quote comes to mind. some murderers and rapists should die in the same exact fashion they made their victims die, then they may actually regret it, instead of putting a sterile needle in their arm and them drifting peacefully into the afterlife. sorry for the rough views everybody.

I fully support the death penalty for really severe crimes, like murder, etc... Obviously it isn't something to be given lightly, I think it has to be proven that the person being charged both fully intended to kill their victim, and is likely to do it again to someone else if given the opportunity... ^ For example, I don't think crimes of passion deserve the death penalty (eg. if someone attacked your child, then you fought back and accidentally killed them, that could be considered a crime of passion - It's murder, but it was spur-of-the moment, perhaps unintended, etc {not premeditated}) If someone is mentally ill, I don't think they deserve the death penalty either... Basically, someone has to be fully aware of what they are doing, have considered the consequences, and deliberately gone ahead with it and killed someone in order for them to get the death penalty IMO... ^ Apart from that, I think life imprisonment with parole should be the highest punishment... (Without parole, it's just torturing them until they die of natural causes, which is easily going to be a far worse crime than anything the criminal has done, IMO)

Forever against. Violence is abhorrent!

I'm against it. I think only God has the decision on who lives and who dies. Plus if I were going to jail for the rest of my life, I think I would rather be put to death. Life in jail seems like a more harsh penalty to me.

I for one, am not a death penalty supportor. I just feel we as people, have no more right to take a life, than that of the one who took another.

I am opposed to it. Not only is it more expensive to kill someone, there is never 100% proof that they both commited a crime and that the crime they commited is one that is the one the judge says it is. There could be 99.99% proof, but that means that there is the slightest possibility of killing an innocent person for no reason. Death is permanent. It is an infinite punishment. Jailing them for life is cheaper and if evidence turns up later clearing them of their charges, it won't be too late. Check out http://www.innocenceproject.org/ for a lot of wrongly convicted people.

I am a supporter of it, because I'm sort of a fatalist in that I believe everybody will die. Governments are supposed to make sure that murderers, especially mass murderers, don't continue their evil little hobbies. On the other hand, I find it fascinating that countries who whip their criminals naked through the streets instead of using the death penalty as their biggest threat, have a much lower rate of crime. Humiliation versus death as a deterrent, hmmmmn...let me see... Yep, I'll go with humiliation whenever feasible. Edit: I think being shot would be more humanitarian than being poisoned. No, I'm not sure why.

See this answer: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/70609 edpesosss134, you are new here so let me explain something. If you post a duplicate question and someone lets you know its been asked before and has atleast 65 answers already, you don't rate them down. You say thank you.

Against it, like any decent human being. We don't bring back the dead by murdering murderers.

I am an officer, i see things the general public does not see everyday. I am definately for the death penalty.... needless to say.... but then again it depends on the crime... child rapist, rapist, murders, those types of crimes definately.....

I am against the Death Penalty in almost all cases except in cases where humanity is in danger, like Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, etc. I believe that the system of itself is inherently flawed. My main reasons against the death penalty are *It discriminates against the poor -because of the way our judicial system works, a wealthy man is going to be able to afford a more qualified lawyer,with more experience, etc. who is better able to defend the wealthy man. *Innocent people have died for crimes that have not committed. The Death Penalty is FINAL and can not be undone when a person is found innocent. *It has been statistically proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crimes. -one ex. Other countries with out the Death Penalty don't have as high of crime rates *The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. -though many people would like to see murderers and rapists tortured severly which shows to me the lack of concern for civil rights, and human life, and impared judgement. *The taking of one person's life, does not justify the taking of another. *For purely economic reasons: the cost of executions cost more than the cost of life in prison without parole. *Every human being has a right to life. *Life without Parole in prison is a reasonable alternative. *What if you were convicted wrongfully of a crime, and sentenced to death. It would be horrible to know that so many people despised you for something you didn't do, and to know that you no longer have the right to live. *President Clinton's 1994 crime bill added 58 more crimes that are punishable by death. And his "Anti-Terrorism" bill limits the number of federal appeals for death row prisoners to just one within one year of conviction. *It is barbaric, and outdated. At one point people thought that being burned at the stake was just punishment for certain crimes, along with the gas chamber, and electric chair. *There is no “fixing” the racial bias, class bias and political corruption that make the death penalty emblematic of society’s most profound inequalities. *Jesus was innocent, but suffered the death penalty. These are the reasons that I am AGAINST the death penalty. I would hope that even if you disagree with my views you would value my opinion.

I am opposed to the death penalty except in ONE circumstance. SUPPORT: --IF a person in prison commits another murder IN prison, THEN I would support the death penalty because otherwise, wardens have no hope of trying to prevent murders within the prison walls. Threatening a life prisoner with more prison time isn't much of a deterrent. OPPOSED: --often imposed in error (Illinois learned that 13 of the 26 men they had on Death Row COULD NOT have done the crimes, according to modern DNA analysis, for example) --the rich can buy their way out of it (in pre-trial negotiations, O.J. Simpson got a GUARANTEE that he would not receive the death penalty if he were found guilty -- only his wealth let him hire enough legal talent to manage that) --it's racially discriminatory; people who kill whites are far more likely to get the death penalty than people who kill blacks --hypocritical; you don't kill to show that killing is wrong --more expensive than incarcerating someone for life --it's ritual murder by the government of someone who is NOT dangerous to the public because they are in prison already, so no immediate threat --it is human sacrifice by the government, to satisfy people who want vengeance and politicians who need to appear "tough on crime," like Roman emperors throwing criminals and religious minorities to the lions to entertain the public --it's a punishment we can't undo if we're wrong. We can set a living person free, and give them money for their time; but if we have wrongly executed them, it doesn't matter -- they're dead forever.

I have nothing against it - I'm actually for it. I don't think that some crimes are forgivable, and that the person responsible should lose everything.

i think that there is things in life much worse than death. the death penalty is the easy way out for some of them. i think

Very good question! I'm part for it and part against it? I believe a life behind bars is as tough a punshment as any, however I also believe that if a person commits murder and shows no remorse or possibility of rehabilitation then they do not deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us. I'm not very religious but I do believe that if there is a god then god will forgive those who feel remorse and guilt. I think there are better ways of punishment than death, such as solitary lock up.

I prefer never to experience it.

I hesitate to say that I am against it, because I have not had a loved one murdered, but I don't see where it's justified at all. In my opinion murder isn't justifiable. Self-defense is one thing, but if you honestly believe that killing another person is wrong I don't see how you can argue that their bad actions give you license to do the same. Also, humans are far from perfect and death is permanent. It's very hard to be 100% sure that someone is guilty, but when someone is executed that is the end. There is no going back from it if one day you find out they were innocent. I don't trust mankind's ability to determine guilt enough to approve of sanctioning the ending of someone's life as punishment.

Woah... that's a little harsh for hockey, don't you think?

I'm for it. Only people who should get the death penality are people who have been found guilty of several deaths or murders. Otherwise, jail time is fine for them. They have to do something really bad to get the dealth penality.

I think it is beneath us, and we should abandon it. I am opposed to the death penalty except in ONE circumstance. SUPPORT: --IF a person in prison commits another murder IN prison, THEN I would support the death penalty because otherwise, wardens have no hope of trying to prevent murders within the prison walls. Threatening a life prisoner with more prison time isn't much of a deterrent. OPPOSED: --often imposed in error (Illinois learned that 13 of the 26 men they had on Death Row COULD NOT have done the crimes, according to modern DNA analysis, for example) --the rich can buy their way out of it (in pre-trial negotiations, O.J. Simpson got a GUARANTEE that he would not receive the death penalty if he were found guilty -- only his wealth let him hire enough legal talent to manage that) --it's racially discriminatory; people who kill whites are far more likely to get the death penalty than people who kill blacks --it harms society by mirroring and reinforcing existing injustice --it's hypocritical; you don't kill to show that killing is wrong --it's more expensive than incarcerating someone for life --it's ritual murder by the government of someone who is NOT dangerous to the public because they are in prison already, so no immediate threat --it is human sacrifice by the government, to satisfy people who want vengeance and politicians who need to appear "tough on crime," like Roman emperors throwing criminals and religious minorities to the lions to entertain the public --it's a punishment we can't undo if we're wrong. We can set a living person free, and give them money for their time; but if we have wrongly executed them, it doesn't matter -- they're dead forever. --it doesn't work to decrease the murder rates. This has been proven in a number of studies. Here is a link to one from 2005; see page two for the conclusion, "there is no evidence that capital punishment has a deterrent effect." http://www.chrisherbst.net/PDFs/C._Herbst_Capital_Punishment_Paper.pdf

We don't bring back the dead or deter murder, by killing killers to show how bad killing is. It's arguably very unethical, and pragmatically speaking it is not shown to reduce crime. It makes miscarriages of justice much harder to redress. Most countries do not use it, and even the U.S. got rid of it for a while; I could never see why it was allowed to be brought back there.

I'm for it. I'm sick of paying taxes to support these people. They are a waste of time and money

I disagree. I think that the worst punishment a human being can receive has to be to spend the rest of his/her life in a cage. The way I think is fair is: 23 hours a day in the cage. Half an hour to move around a controlled area or to exercise and half an hour for dinner. Breakfast and lunch in the cage. One hour visit a week. Half an hour of religious service either Saturday or Sunday. He/She will not become a celebrity. No preaching. If he "finds Jesus", OK, he will keep it to himself. No book writings, TV interviews or any other kind of media exposure. That's the way I want it, but it usually doesn't happen like that...

100% for it. One appeal only. 30 years on death row is a disgrace.

no because they should suffer and rot in jail always begging for death....thats worse then a death penalty

I must say against ... But if some sicko killed one of my children maybe that would change. Not being affected by the loss to such a monster, who knows?

I'm wayy against capital punishment.

I am against the death penalty. A lifetime in jail, is a lot more torchering than not even existing anymore.

I think it is a dead issue on Answerbag by now. It has been discussed literally TO DEATH.

I believe the punishment fits the crime.

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

psh, let them rot in jail

I agree with justme30. I think if someone kills another living person, they should be killed as well.

'STRING EM UP, IT'LL TEACH EM A LESSON ;?

I don't believe it is ours to say who should live and who should die. How can you condemn killing then kill the criminal as punishment?

How do you feel about an eye for an eye?

i think we use it far too little in this country and when we actually do use it, it takes far too long. people shouldn't be sitting on death row for YEARS.

Bring back the public hangings and guillotines..lol

I think that if we're going to kill people, we should at least make it interesting. Public executions are due for a comeback. I could definetly see it happening in a sick country like the US. Executions at half time at the Monday night football game. Crucifixtions could use a comeback too. I'm sure public crucifixtions could really get criminals thinking about their actions.

This is a duplicate question. You can view the 86 answers and add your own at: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/70609 To avoid duplicate questions, pls use the "Find Answers About:" search function (upper right) before asking a question.