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 actually do not support the death penalty as we currently have it in this country. As I said, I have some serious issues with it. I think we need to do away with it or make some major changes, but not because these criminals pose no risk to society if they're incarcerated.
while i do support the death penalty, i do agree that it needs to be used for special circumstances. in the end however, not many people end up on death row comparatively.
while i do support the death penalty, i do agree that it needs to be used for special circumstances. in the end however, not many people end up on death row comparatively.
It's not so much about supporting it only being used in special circumstances. My concerns are innocent people being executed as well as the cost of the appeals process (which actually makes a death sentence more expensive than a sentence of life without parole) and that it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
Punishment IS partially about retribution and I don't think it's inherently wrong when speaking of incredibly heinous acts for society to want vengeance and, yes, for the state to seek it and carry it out.
It's not so much about supporting it only being used in special circumstances. My concerns are innocent people being executed as well as the cost of the appeals process (which actually makes a death sentence more expensive than a sentence of life without parole) and that it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
Punishment IS partially about retribution and I don't think it's inherently wrong when speaking of incredibly heinous acts for society to want vengeance and, yes, for the state to seek it and carry it out.
\
Not much of a deterrent? Have you ever heard of a case of a repeat offense by a criminal that has been executed?
It's not so much about supporting it only being used in special circumstances. My concerns are innocent people being executed as well as the cost of the appeals process (which actually makes a death sentence more expensive than a sentence of life without parole) and that it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
Punishment IS partially about retribution and I don't think it's inherently wrong when speaking of incredibly heinous acts for society to want vengeance and, yes, for the state to seek it and carry it out.
i also have concerns are innocent people being put to death, but the cycle takes an average of what 25 years? in that period of time they cant find new evidence that would exonerate them?
\
Not much of a deterrent? Have you ever heard of a case of a repeat offense by a criminal that has been executed?
Of course not...lol.
However, the states without the death penalty actually have lower murder rates on average than the states with it. I don't think it's because they don't have the death penalty, but I think it does show that the death penalty isn't some huge deterrent.
The reality is a very small percentage of convicted murderers, even in states like Texas, actually receive the death penalty. Not all are eligible but, even among those who are, it's still a fairly small percentage. Once a death sentence is imposed, it is often reversed or commuted later and most condemned murderers spend a decade or more waiting for their executions even when they are eventually carried out. So of course it's not that much of a deterrent.
i also have concerns are innocent people being put to death, but the cycle takes an average of what 25 years? in that period of time they cant find new evidence that would exonerate them?
It has certainly happened before.
I think there really should be a higher burden of proof required by law than "beyond a reasonable doubt" in death penalty cases.
I think a mass murderer such as the Fort Hood shooter or the Aurora shooter have earned the death penalty without question. However, how well do any of you think either of these men would survive in general population? In cases such as these, I believe there should be a fast track to get them through the appeals process in a timely manner.
I think a mass murderer such as the Fort Hood shooter or the Aurora shooter have earned the death penalty without question. However, how well do any of you think either of these men would survive in general population? In cases such as these, I believe there should be a fast track to get them through the appeals process in a timely manner.
I think, if we are going to have the death penalty, appeals in all cases where a death sentence is imposed should be expedited and there should be a 5-year maximum on the time between sentence and execution. I also think, minimally, that some combination of multiple pieces of evidence like DNA or fingerprint evidence or multiple witnesses or the person having been caught on video camera or something should be required. Circumstantial evidence, even with one piece of physical evidence, shouldn't be enough for a death sentence. I also frankly think the defense (certainly not the prosecution though) should be allowed to submit lie detector test evidence if it's favorable to them.
The inconsistency of anti death penalty but pro abortion gets me. So it's wrong to kill a mass murderer but okay to kill millions of babies....now that's inconsistent as hell!
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.
