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.
I'm completely against it, because it's sending the message that revenge is better than mercy. Also I think civilized societies have no reason to practice it.
Most importantly though, there's no solid evidence it deters and prevents crime. If the death penalty was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to prevent murder, I might reconsider my stance reluctantly.
I even think life in prison should only be handed out on a rare basis, for the very very worst of criminals. For your average murder, I'd say 25 years in prison is probably a pretty just sentence, since most murders are unlikely to repeat their crimes in old age, plus I think everyone should at least have a chance at a second chance.
the problem is though, that often those 25 years get reduced, sometimes to absurdly low figures.
A life sentence is just as likely to be reduced. We Americans might feel tough when we sentence a murderer to 1000 years in jail, but who's to say what the state of the nation will be like even 30 years from now? I think justice that sticks to its word is the most effective, Australia and Canada rarely give life sentences yet they are not suffering from a barrage of repeat murder.
My main problem with the death penalty is that they let these indigent offenders sit on death row for 20+ years going through appeal after appeal at the taxpayers expense. If you're going to spend the $$$ for prosecuting a capital case, the sentence should be carried out within 3 years or less of the guilty verdict. Why let a person sentenced to death live another 25 years? What's the point? Either abolish the death penalty or carry out the deed within a reasonable time frame.
My main problem with the death penalty is that they let these indigent offenders sit on death row for 20+ years going through appeal after appeal at the taxpayers expense. If you're going to spend the $$$ for prosecuting a capital case, the sentence should be carried out within 3 years or less of the guilty verdict. Why let a person sentenced to death live another 25 years? What's the point? Either abolish the death penalty or carry out the deed within a reasonable time frame.
I'm against the death penalty because the state is in no way competent enough to decide matters of life and death.
How many condemned have been subsequently found innocent and released from death row?
Our own criminal guv is also hypocritical, as it kills without consequence (wars of aggression, drone attacks).
Why dont the same penalties apply to presidents and congress?
Our legal system is nothing but a market where guilt or innocence are purchase by the highest bidder.
I'm for the death penalty. And I agree with the above posters that the penalty needs to be carried out much sooner than it is. These offenders get to sit on death row for decades waiting for their date to come. During that time they waste our money, commit crimes in prison, and are just a drain on society.
I am American and 100% against for the reasons detailed below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
I'm against the death penalty because the state is in no way competent enough to decide matters of life and death.
How many condemned have been subsequently found innocent and released from death row?
Our own criminal guv is also hypocritical, as it kills without consequence (wars of aggression, drone attacks).
Why dont the same penalties apply to presidents and congress?
Our legal system is nothing but a market where guilt or innocence are purchase by the highest bidder.
Also there is a such thing as life without parole for heinous offenses and I feel that should be used for those types of crimes such as mass murder, serial rapist and child molestation/rape.
I do not feel that the state should be involved in killing its citizens. I also don't think that death is an adequate punishment for heinous crimes. I would prefer that people are alive to suffer imprisonment instead of being released from the difficulties of life via death.
I also would like to see our prison systems reformed to include more rehabilitative programs and activities for first time offenders and prisoners without substantially violent offenses. I would also like to see those who do commit crimes that are eligible for parole to have extensive and intense rehabilitation before they are release from prison.
Completely against it, not because I don't think it's morally appropriate for premeditated murder, but because it encourages a desire for revenge that affects other social and criminal policy.
I oppose the death penalty due to my belief that no man has the right to end the life of a living human being (except in the act of self defense). I'm also strongly pro-life. I don't understand the mindset of those who support the right of the mother to kill her innocent child through abortion while at the same time opposing the death penalty for murderers.
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.
