I am against it because i know that people are wrongly accused and if they were sent to jail they could be let free if they were wrongly accused. It is also hypicritical because it is saying if you kill we shall kill you. Waht do you think?
I am opposed to the death penalty because of the error issue. I see no hypocricy in the death penalty. The exicution of a convict is a cooperative act of the community. The murder that lead to that exicution was the act of an individual against another. The two acts are not on the same moral level and are not comperable. Similarly, an excicution is the act of the community and should be carried out according to the highest standards of the community. "An eye of an eye" or torturing a torturer is contrary to the community acting for its betterment. When the death penalty is imposed it should be an occasion for mass mourning that we have had to do a terrible thing. All of that supposes that we have a perfect system where no inocent person is sentenced to death. How about changing the mode of excicution to "death by imprisionment"?
I'm 200% opposed to it. Mostly due to the error factor as well, but another reason is that it actually costs the state more money in a death penalty case because of the costs of the appeals processes. What's really dumb though, is that here in texas there is no "life without parol" (for no good reason that I can think of) so it's either life with the possibility of parol (which no one wants) or the death penalty. It sucks.
I'm all for it. Anytime you commit a violent act that leads to a death THAT isn't in self-defense, you deserve death. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Yeah in a society where the legal system is 100% accurate - no room for error. The number of people who have been released from prison over the past several years due to being falsely convicted is considerable. Say eye for an eye all you want, but when it is quite obvious that the legal system in america isn't 100% accurate the thought of putting someone to death who did not commit a crime is unbearable. Though it is a small percentage, there are people in the US penile system who never commited a crime and there are innocent people who have died.
I'm against it because there have been mistakes made on death row, it doesn't at all deter crime (which some supporters claim), it's a lot more expensive than life in prison (there's a whole lot of money that used to execute people that could be used to prevent crime), and there are many disparities in its use.
If we went back to firing squads, it wouldn't be too expnesive. Also, VERY few people are proven innocent on deaht row.
One is enough. Chances are not likely that it does happen, but say you were framed and put to death for a crime you didn't do. Would you still feel the same way? Oh and too make matters worse on your last night before going to the chair, you pick up a newspaper and read that someone like OJ is free who did kill someone, but could afford a better lawyer than you to get off the hook?
The reason why the death penalty is very expensive is because there are many, many appeals before an execution takes place. It takes a long time before an execute takes place. And about prisoners being innocent on death row, it happened enough times in Illinois that the then-governor placed a moratorium on it.
I'm for the death penalty but only in the worst possible cases, like a guy who rapes his daughters, cuts them into pieces and then eats them, and then throws and old lady off of a bridge after running over 10 people to get to the bridge. Something along those lines.
I think male criminals should be given a deal where if they confess to the crime, and all supporting evidence proves they are in fact guilty, then they get their balls chopped off and their dominant eye taken out and are allowed to go free. They would only serve the amount of time in jail that it took to verify their confession. These are only criminals convicted of violent crimes of course. This is their first chance. If they are picked up again, they are to face the death penalty with no chance of appeal. There is no reason why they should put themselves in a situation where they are falsely accused, therefore, lights out.
I'm totally against it...mostly because of the error issue and also becuase I think that for a criminal it's worst to be locked up for years behind four walls than to face the salvation of leaving this world behind after commiting what he would call the "satisfaction" of committing his crime, that in the bottom of his hearless self he probably thoroughly enjoyed.... and also it costs the state more money...money that they can use on something else that is worthwhile...
Because once sentenced to death, the system no longer wants to deal with their case or seeing to it that they are 100% guilty. The sentence is given, why drag out the case? I'm against the death penalty no matter the circumstance. The death penalty proves our system is no better than the killer themself.
I would be 100% for it if our system was just and fair. For now, I'm for it in instances where guilt is proven w/o a doubt (DNA proof). You guys say "one is enough" regarding innocent people being sentenced, but I think "one is enough" regarding innocent people being murdered because a killer got away with it. Fuck murderers. And child molesters. The world is over-populated with humans, get rid of the ones unworthy of life.
Metro, just wondering, would you say that those politicians who some would consider terrorists (whether they be George W. Bush, Hussein, Robert Mugabe, leaders of the apartheid regime in South Africa) deserve the death penalty? Some would call them murderers Also, someone who say that there are "unworthy of life" that aren't murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. I just don't like that phrase "unworthy of life." Just some thoughts.
Well, I have fairly extreme views I suppose. I consider a murderer one who takes a life with his own hands. You know what I mean. Sure some leaders of some countries qualify IMO. I would not object too strongly to death for child molesters.....how can someone do that to a child? they should at least be locked up for life. Also, someone doesn't have to murder a human to get the death penalty in my perfect world....if they killed the last of an endangered species, they would fry too. I know no one here agrees with me, but why do you guys always seem to side with the criminal, not the victims? I believe in a fair trial etc., but come on, crimes are committed and sometimes we do know who did it.
