Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
are you for it, against it? should it only be used in certain cases? how do you feel about execution methods etc????
me personally... i'm against it's use but there are some cases i can't defend when someone is sentenced to death. for example, people who are screwed up to the point where prison is pointless such as serial killers like ted bundy or someone who is convicted of premediated murder then commits another premediated murder while they're incarcerated (troy kell). another thing too. if a state has the death penalty on its books, i believe that they should either use it or lose it. i think it's pointless to have sentence people to death, have them sitting on death row for 20 plus years before they are executed and i also think it's dumb to have a population of 700 inmates awaiting execution with only a small amount of inmates that have been executed. basically what i'm saying is it shouldn't be on the books and if it's on the books, it should be used how it was supposed to be implemented under the law.
are you for it, against it? should it only be used in certain cases? how do you feel about execution methods etc????
me personally... i'm against it's use but there are some cases i can't defend when someone is sentenced to death. for example, people who are screwed up to the point where prison is pointless such as serial killers like ted bundy or someone who is convicted of premediated murder then commits another premediated murder while they're incarcerated (troy kell). another thing too. if a state has the death penalty on its books, i believe that they should either use it or lose it. i think it's pointless to have sentence people to death, have them sitting on death row for 20 plus years before they are executed and i also think it's dumb to have a population of 700 inmates awaiting execution with only a small amount of inmates that have been executed. basically what i'm saying is it shouldn't be on the books and if it's on the books, it should be used how it was supposed to be implemented under the law.
Blame the 'Bleeding Heart Attorneys' for all the delays!
We put down rabid dogs who kill!
And as I've said before: "You hurt one of mine, I hurt You back .. You Kill one of mine, I Kill you back"!
One of the only reasons I am pro-death penalty is because this eliminates the possibility of early release. Life sentences are typically In Name Only. I could care less about the punishment aspect or the moral aspect of the death penalty. Some people should not be allowed into society.
I used to be, but as I got older I realized our government is far too incompetent to be allowed to decide matters of life and death.
I have always been for it as a deterrent, which it would be if used. The way the courts have ruled so often when anyone tried to use it makes it very unlikely that it could ever be a deterrent.
When someone argues that unless a murder was pre-planned that pisses me since killing earns some of that back. I am sure that very few of our people are stupid enough to think that they would get by with it if we didn't allow those lawyers to string it out for years. I say that more than 5 years of constant appeals is enough. When you have no success in that period kill the murdering bastards.
The method that I would prefer would be hangling. It would have to hurt quite a bit to climb those stairs, have the hood slipped on and then the rope slipped on. They killed and they deserve to die, themselves.
are you for it, against it? should it only be used in certain cases? how do you feel about execution methods etc????
me personally... i'm against it's use but there are some cases i can't defend when someone is sentenced to death. for example, people who are screwed up to the point where prison is pointless such as serial killers like ted bundy or someone who is convicted of premediated murder then commits another premediated murder while they're incarcerated (troy kell). another thing too. if a state has the death penalty on its books, i believe that they should either use it or lose it. i think it's pointless to have sentence people to death, have them sitting on death row for 20 plus years before they are executed and i also think it's dumb to have a population of 700 inmates awaiting execution with only a small amount of inmates that have been executed. basically what i'm saying is it shouldn't be on the books and if it's on the books, it should be used how it was supposed to be implemented under the law.
I am very much pro the death penalty, I didn't used to be. I will add, it should only be used if there is no doubt. I think modern day DNA makes is easier to prove guilt. I also believe there should only be one appeal unless new evidence is discovered (real evidence) and no one should be kept on death row for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Against it, 17 executions were reversed based on DNA evidence, there is too much room for mistakes.
Bingo. I used to be for it, but with all the reversals, I no longer feel comfortable giving the government that kind of authority.
That said, if a terrorist or serial killer got executed I'd shed no tears. I'd just say "good riddance"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
