Do you believe in the death penalty?

[Brittani]

I'm not sure whether i agree or disagree with the death penalty. whats your opinion about the death penalty? :\

 

[Izanagi]

I support it. The Bible says that if you take a life, you should lose yours.

 

[Brittani]

I support it. The Bible says that if you take a life, you should lose yours.

true...like an eye for an eye. that does make sense. but why would someone not support the death penalty? thats why i need people here that do and dont.

 

[Aureol]

I support it, but I don't think it should be done for a first offense. Some people CAN change, and it really is a waste to kill off those that might've ended up different. Once a second offense is committed though, then do it, no question.

 

[.Gamer]

"An eye for an eye." I also think child rapists should be killed too. Thats just sickening.

 

[Human]

Roast 'em. I did a research paper a few years ago, and the statistics I found showed that it's also considerably more pricey to keep people on jail.

 

[Nick]

I support the death penalty, but for heinous criminals, I'd much prefer a slow and painful torture scenario than a quick death.

 

[Sneeze]

Was discussing this earlier today with friends, I don't support it unless the person is a serial offender, killing a person because he killed someone else is a little moot, no? What if he killed someone to raped him, or who killed who commited a crime that was punishable by the death penalty? Would he still get charged then even though the person who operates the switch of the electric chair is guilty of the exact same thing? Killing someone is killing someone regardless of methods and who did it. What about soldiers?

There's to many variables in it in my opinion and as said, unless a person has killed like five people then no, I disagree with it completely.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I do not support it. But if we are to do it my method of choice is nitrogen aspyxiation.

 

[Yamikarasu]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Think about it...

Am I seriously the first person to vote that I don't support the death penalty? (Well I was when I started typing this :P) I'm surprised, I thought there would at least be a few others. Am I going to have to pull out and dust off my list of statistics saying how much more money it costs taxpayers to kill someone legally than it does to send them to prison for life without parole?

I just can't support killing anyone in any case. Maybe in self-defense, but the death penalty is not self-defense. And please don't give me that B.S. about how we're protecting others by killing dangerous people. When dangerous people are locked up how they should be (maximum security + life without parole), they can't kill people. Period. Plus there is always the possibility you are killing someone who is innocent. It's f*****g sick.

Sometimes you just have to be the better person and realize that you can't kill someone because they killed someone first. It's like children in a fight and saying to their parents "well they started it!"

I want someone to give me a reason that someone should be killed when there is the option of life without parole. Hint: revenge is not the answer.

Roast 'em. I did a research paper a few years ago, and the statistics I found showed that it's also considerably more pricey to keep people on jail.

Alright, I guess I'll dust them off:

Acording to https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty...

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Even Fox News has reported on how much the death penalty costs in comparison to life without parole. The reason costs are so high because the process required by the constitution to kill someone legally is so convoluted. Lawyers need to be paid, etc., etc.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

"An eye for an eye." I also think child rapists should be killed too. Thats just sickening.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing child molesters is cruel and unusal punishment because the punhisment is not proportionate to the crime. They feel execution should be done where the prisoner has taken a life. So they did go "eye for an eye" on that one.

 

[Sneeze]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing child molesters is cruel and unusal punishment because the punhisment is not proportionate to the crime. They feel execution should be done where the prisoner has taken a life. So they did go "eye for an eye" on that one.

So they should be molested by someone with a simialr size ratio to what they had over the child, like a gorilla or a rhino.

Actually I'm all for that one, above all else, it would be hilarious.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So they should be molested by someone with a simialr size ratio to what they had over the child, like a gorilla or a rhino.

Actually I'm all for that one, above all else, it would be hilarious.

Epic win!

On more serious note I'm sure that would be struck down by the Court as well.
In that case is when the Court decided to give extra rights to death row convicts. The majority had the opinion that "Death is different." when deciding how to handle these cases.

 

[Stairmaster]

I support it, but I don't think it should be done for a first offense. Some people CAN change, and it really is a waste to kill off those that might've ended up different. Once a second offense is committed though, then do it, no question.

So that two children are molested? So that two entire families are shot to death one by one? So that two people's lives are either taken or completely ruined? I don't think that's a good way to look at it. Some people just can't be rehabilitated.

I support the death penalty, but for heinous criminals, I'd much prefer a slow and painful torture scenario than a quick death.

I definitely agree with this. Why be humane to someone who isn't?

 

[twocows]

If people are destructive members of society, they need to be dealt with. First, we should try therapy or re-education, but this should be carefully monitored. It's possible they may just have had a rough life and need to sort some things out. We do need a way to figure out which people may simply be rehabilitated and which people are too far gone, so to say.

If that fails, though, the government should give the person an option on how to contribute to society, of which the death penalty should be a choice. The person should be confined and allowed to choose whether to do manual labor, to do research, to have some sort of procedure done to solve the problem (e.g., in instances of rape, chemical or physical castration), or to take the death penalty. I feel like this would turn these people into potentially productive, albeit isolated, members of society.

 

[Brittani]

yeah i think i am against the death penalty mainly because two wrongs dont make a right. If someone kills someone and then we kill them, does that really make it right? And i dont believe that someone should decide when another is going to die, life is sacred as stated in the bible. Also, people can change if we give them a chance to, but by killing them we arent giving them a chance to change their ways.

 

[icomeanon6]

I definitely agree with this. Why be humane to someone who isn't?

Because when we cease to be humane to anyone, we are not acting as humans.

I oppose the death penalty for the same reason that I oppose abortion. It is not our place to decide who dies, even if we don't think it's fair that they have life. The only case where killing is morally defensible is where a person's continued existence brings a serious threat to the lives of others. Enemy combatants (assuming the war is just) and fetuses that put the mother's life at stake fall under this category, but criminals in most countries do not. We can keep them securely in jail indefinitely, so that's what we should do. It may be expensive, but it's nothing that most countries can't afford. Only severely impaired countries can morally use the death penalty.

 

[NarutoActor]

I have never really formed an opinion on this. I feel it should be different in every state. Which ever one is cheaper really, save the most money in this troubling economy. But something in my heart tells me no one besides god has the right to end a life.

 

[Harmonie]

I'm against it.

It's like "You killed people, that's wrong!" and then you kill them. Okay, whatever. If that's the logic you want to follow. Personally I'd much rather them end up in jail for the rest of their life.

 

[Legobricks]

If people routinely refuse to or are unable to function in society, they should be placed seperate from it. They may then attempt clandestinely re-enter it for their personal benefit, so if this is deemed to be overwhelmingly likely they should be expunged before given such a chance.