Do You Support The Death Penalty?

1. 86

   Shil1978posted 12 years ago

   Do You Support The Death Penalty?

   replyreport
2. 75

   d.williamposted 12 years ago

   When you look at mass murders and serial killers one would tend to say "yes" to the death penalty.  But when you look at all those people who were found innocent of murder by DNA testing after sitting on death row for many years, you would tend to say "no" to the death penalty.  So, this is a difficult and controversial question.  Unless there is a differentiation made that the death penalty applies only to those who commit serial, or mass, murders, and found guilty through indisputable evidence, then the answer would have to be a resounding "no".

   replyreport
3. 82

   gregasposted 12 years ago

   No, unless it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were guilty of the crime they are sentenced for. The ones that have been cleared since DNA has become so readily available are usually ones that were sentenced before the DNA was available. They were possibly also senetnced in a court with a not so understanding jury or may have even been set up. But yes, for, as D. says, the serial and mass murderers that have indisputable evidence and are admitted killers. Greg

   replyreport
4. 60

   Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years ago

   Yes, I'm all for the "eye for an eye" however I have a coveat to this position...if a DA/ prosecutor supressed evidence or any of a number of games these guys play in order to obtain an easy conviction by wrongfully accusing and convicting people, then the prosector will be fined, imprisoned for 1 year, law licensed revoked and branded a felon -- if later there is evidence that the individual was wrongly convicted. In addition the police that manufactured or supressed evidence shall receive the same punishment.
   
   Essentially what I'm seeking is ACCOUNTABILITY in government. These prosecutors have seen how scumbags like Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of NYC and how Elliot Spitzer became governor of New York State, by breaking the law and manipulating the law to advance themselves. Unfortunately these prosecutors lack moral and ethical fiber, and would sell their mother to advance their careers, so these people need to be reigned in.
   
   Therefore if some scumbag kills someone...fry him, but do it justly and ethically. And if the DA lies about it and they convict the wrong guy because of actions taken by the DA the DA has to be accountable. And by the way, if a murderer is caught on tape or says: "yes I killed them" without being cohersed or beaten, then accept facts, give the guy a good meal and a cigarette and then put him in the chair the next day.

   replyreport
5. 61

   veritorogueposted 12 years ago

   The death penalty is the only punishment that can serve justice for the crime of murder but because it cannot be administered perfectly I cannot support it. We cannot tolerate the execution of a single innocent person, ever. I take comfort in my belief that no crime can ever go unpunished because our creator will call all victimizers to account. Because of this I can accept the lifelong imprisonment of murderers in the knowing that they will someday answer to the omnipotent authority for all the wicked they have done.

   replyreport
6. 59

   dlalvinsonposted 12 years ago

   Most support for the death penalty comes from persons influenced deeply by their religious holy books, i.e. the Bible, Koran, etc. Most persons with no religious persuasion are appalled by the very idea of the extreme eye for an eye punishment. It would seem that the death penalty would be applicable within the numbers holding to the teachings of their particular guide book for life. For example, within the context of the Old Testament laws, the Jews would be subject to the death punishment if guilty of severe law breaking. But what about when holders of such beliefs are just a part of a larger community? Should they be able to insist that their beliefs apply to all? What if they are the majority and the death penalty is democratically put in place - does that make it right? To be fair, it would seem not. When such a punishment is forced on the entire population, is the desired deterrent result achieved? Does a reduction in the frequency of punishable crime trade off favorably against the unrest of the portion of the population that is against the form of punishment? Usually, no.

   replyreport
7. 58

   krystinoelleposted 12 years ago

   "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

   replyreport
8. 67

   Keith Engelposted 12 years ago

   No due to several reasons. I will state that I once supported the death penalty and understood the philosophical argument behind it that due the fact that a murderer claimed the right to life of another that he looses the right to his. Yet, I can no longer support the death penalty in the same sense and feel that life in prison in a cage is a fit punishment just the same, the person basically looses their right to freedom and to live life freely and is just punishment and the person has to think on what it they did. Furthermore, the person is given the true chance to repent and change and that is part of my faith.
   
   Furthermore, I can no longer support Capital Punishment with the same argument as is often understood if it is going to be used as a means to justify infanticide as is being done by Bioethics and being published about in a Medical Journal as seen below.
   
   Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
   
   If the right to life is not going to be found in the human and instead in the person hood as is argued by these evil people, then I am against capital punishment for the reasons stated.

   replyreport
9. 92

   ercramer36posted 12 years ago

   Yes, I support the death penalty for 1st degree cases that have multiple witnesses to the crime.  Life should be valued and if you decide to take a life, you should lose yours. It is 100% effective as a deterent. The guilty party will never do it again . Raise the evidence standards in order to give it as a penalty. For sample, someone who shoots u a school and everyone sees it.

   replyreport