should the death penalty be abolished?
543417
Absolutely not. Not ever
646985
No death sentence.\n\nLife in prison or not, the sentence should make him repent what he/she did and his/her painful life (not physical) should be an example to people not to commit crimes against humanity.
669251
There is no evidence that the death penalty is more of a deterrent to potential murderers than life imprisonment.  Many countries have abolished the death penalty without there being any noticeable rise in the murder rate, beyond pre-existing trends.  \n\nOne of the most compelling reasons for abolishing the death penalty would be that it is irreversible.  Miscarriages of justice cannot be corrected.
848781
Yes, anyone who kills themself should be executed.  Not only that, they should be made to pay to clean up the mess.
737906
The wording of your question is a little confusing, which might be why people (like me) are going off on a tangent instead of answering it.\n\nAre you asking if the death penalty is just? Or are you asking if a society has to have the death penalty in order to be a just society? Or are you asking if the only just means of taking a life in society is by death penalty (as opposed to vigilantism perhaps)?\n\nReally, I think the most important questions are what purpose does the death penalty serve, is it a worthy purpose, and how well does it serve that purpose? The following questions, regarding possible purposes for the death penalty, are from the article referenced below:\n\n"-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm? \n\n-- Is the purpose to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation? \n\n-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder? \n\n-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to punish the criminal? \n\n-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to take retribution on behalf of the victim?"\n\nInstead of arguing emotionally over the issue, I think it would serve us better to ask ourselves what it is we're trying to accomplish, whether those objectives are truly appropriate, and then try to measure in dispassionate and objective ways whether capital punishment really meets those objectives. In other words, let's apply a little rational reflection to this issue instead of operating from that reptilian part of our brain that screams, "Bad guys must die! Me caveman!"
749436
Yes and No.\n I dont support the death penalty as a whole but I do believe some crimes warrant it. You have to look into the extenuating circumstances on everything, nothing is the same.\nSaddam was evil and did torture his own people, but at the same time, our country supplied him with weapons and helped keep him in power, so where is our responsibility in this?\n Politically I think it will benefit the Republicans greatly and re energize their core base into thinking they are doing something.\n In Iraq I dont think it will help any since he at sentencing he ya know told his people to overthrow the infidels(us) \n So we shall see wont we.
894019
Absolutely. The death penalty should be administered to anyone denying the existence of God.\n\nOnce of course, his existence is proved.\n\nOver to you Heinz!!
268411
I fully support capital punishment. The only real problem with capital punishment is how long it takes from conviction and sentencing to execution. Upon conviction and imposition of the death sentence, there should be an immediate and thourough appeal review. If that review also concurrs with the conviction and sentence then sentence should be carried out expeditiously. In my opinion the time between sentence and exectution should be less than 30 days.\n\nAll punishments should be swift and sure. Then they really WILL act as deterrents. Even without the deterrent factor, removing a murderer from society will always be a wortwhile act.\n\nWhile we are at it we should return capital punishment to desertion and treason.
177564
I am all for the death penalty. I am not saying that everyone that has killed someone should be put to death, but I do believe that when there is absolute proof that someone murdered another human being out of cold blood that person does not deserve to live. The taxpayers spend entirely too much money housing these criminals. And what about the cost of medial treatment for these animals? We have honest, law abiding citizens in our country that can't afford medication or health care, why should the criminals be treated better. And I am tired of people using the excuse that they are mentally disturbed or were on drugs at the time of their crime. Most of these people are useless, wastes of life...sorry if that sounds cold, but that is the way I feel. Once someone has crossed that line of taking another human beings life I truly believe that they will do it again.
380408
Of course your question might be phrased a little off, because the death penalty IS legal in some states.\n\nMy personal opinion is it should be legal in all states.  I kind of differ that I do not belief it should be shown or made a big deal out of, glorifying it in the news, etc, though that is normal human nature I guess.\n\nThe reason I believe in the death penalty is there are some people that are so dangerous they will continue to do what they do whether they are in prison or not.  And those that have prison terms have been dealt the fairest justice exacted upon them, and the risk of dying at the hands of another would be reduced by the death penalty I believe.  I also believe the families deserve closure.
234331
I agree with having a death penalty, if we could ensure guilt. until then, the only justification is to "save money" that would be spent imprisoning someone for life. I think that argument is a little too NAZI. killing people because they cost society money just isn't a healthy road to travel.
666671
I certainly think that some people that are in favor of the death penalty are people that would murder as they have no value of life. Yes it is barbaric and wrong to lower your morals to that of the alleged perpetrator.
849298
No.\n\nAs a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, I would cite the following reasons:\n\n(1) Death is an irreversible punishment, and overzealous juries/prosecutors get it wrong WAY too often.  (RECENT EXAMPLE:  Read "The Innocent Man", a nonfiction book by John Grisham.)\n\n(2) Taxpayer dollars spent on criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution. Yet, statistical data is clear that the death penalty and tougher criminal sentences does not deter murder or violent crime.  Why?  Most violent criminals are sociopathic/psychopathic and simply do not rationally weigh the consequences of their actions before committing violent crimes.\n\n(3) The numbers indicate that the death penalty is not imposed upon the worst of the murderers (i.e., the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed).  Why?  Truly disturbed seriel killers more often than not have mitigating circumstances that get them out of the death penalty (e.g., severe abuse as children).  Second, the death penalty is most often sought where the prosecution can get an easy sentence (i.e., the person who drove the person who pulled the trigger, because the person who actually pulled the trigger ran to the police and got a plea deal for life without parole).\n\n(4) Prosecuting the death penalty costs taxpayers more than simply giving them a sentence of life without parole.  Why?  Courts want to do everything they can to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death.  Unfortunately, innocent people are being released from death row routinely, despite the fact that they had numerous appeals.\n\n(5) The death penalty is not fairly applied.  For example, Harris County, Texas prosecutes more death penalty cases than the rest of the State of Texas combined.  Is that fair?  Is it fair that a black defendant who kills a white victim is 8 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white defendant who kills a black victim?  Is it fair that over 90% of the defendants on death row in states like Texas, which have no public defenders, had no money to hire an attorney and had to receive court-appointed counsel, most of which have no criminal law experience?\n\n(6) Once again, criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution.  Although victim's families will say, on the eve of execution, that the death penalty gives them closure; pyschologists who actually follow up with victim's families will tell you that is a fallacy.  (Read up on it for yourself.)  If the government wants to be in the business of making victim's families feel better (as opposed to making society safer, which is the primary purpose of criminal law), then it would better devote the financial resources to providing psychological services than seeking death penalty prosecutions.\n\n(7) The assertion that a person who commits murder poses a risk that he/she will murder again is ridiculous if the alternative sentence is life in prison without possibility of parole (as it is in most states for murder).  A rapist or other violent criminal is just as likely to murder or commit violent crimes on other inmates than murderers are.  We are not making other inmates (all of whom commited violent crimes if they are in high security prisons) statistically safer by killing murderers.\n\nNow, my Christian view:\n\n(1) One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses says "Thou shalt not kill."  That's a period at the end of that sentence.  It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless the person you are killing killed someone else."  There is no "unless", no "if", no qualifiers whatsoever.\n\n(2) In response to all of those "good Christians" who are often so quick to cite the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) as grounds for supporting the death penalty, I would direct you to two passages from the NEW TESTAMENT:\n(i) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a too
393585
If you are referring to the death penalty, I'm all for it.  The more criminals who get the death penalty, the less taxes I have to pay to keep them alive!  \n\nIf you are asking if it is right to personally murder someone who murdered a loved one, no that is not right.  The legal process is in place to serve justice; it's not our place to do that.
1024222
Those are all good points for the legislatures to consider but the constitution does not allow the court to simply decide that the death penalty is unwise.  State legislatures decide and then then Court decides if that penalty is barred as "cruel and unusual" punishment but the constitution doesn't preclude state laws that are merely "counterproductive."  so, run for your state legislature and vote to abolish the death penalty in your state.
122002
I think hanging is an appropriate form af exacution for certain types of crime (murder, rape, torture, child molestation), but not publicly.  That sort of thing should be done in private behind closed doors with only court appointd whittness there to veiw and document the exacution.  If death by hanging were to be made available it would become a specticale, nothing more than entertainment (which is partly why it was banned in the first place).  It would do little to intimedate potential felons and only create a demand for "capitol offenders" to sate the public thirst for blood.
674676
Yes I agree with the death penalty. Life in prison is not a punishment for long term prisoners. Three meals a day, cable TV, no bills. They think it's a good life.