Do you support the death penalty?

[Jumi]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

 

[Sees]

I am for it, unless there is a good banishment alternative which isn't too expensive. I don't think societies should have to tolerate or support folks that go beyond a certain line of behavior.

The list o'crimes would be similar to what we have now - I'd have to think more on it to add or subtract before posting.

 

[Revoltingest]

I oppose it.
We need to be able to fix wrongful convictions.

 

[Sunstone]

Oppose it for various reasons, among them: The death penalty gives governments too much power over citizens.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If there is evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent and could reduce crime then I am for it. I don't have any moral problems with it, I take a practical approach as to its actual effects.

Though I'm not sure how much of a deterrent the current death penalty is in America, in its current state, seeing as it happens so rarely now and people get the penalty delayed for years and years and raise all sorts of legal objections. A swift execution after an unanimous jury trial would be preferred.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I oppose
Are women on death row for adultery in Iran (stoning)
Also people on death row for alcohol related offense

The norm that west considers death row offense the type that commit these offense do not really consider consequences , also chances of miscarriages of justice.
Justice is not revenge .

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I oppose it.
We need to be able to fix wrongful convictions.

I reckon unanimous jury trial would go a long way to reducing wrongful convictions, what do you think? If there's just one wrongful conviction out of all the executions, would that be too many for you? Is there an acceptable level? I know you're not a fan of war, but in the event we ever have to wage war, say we're attacked, we'll have to accept the possibility of innocent casualties. If the death penalty is an effective deterrent, would the benefits outweigh the possible one or two wrongful convictions?

 

[Skwim]

It hasn't been shown to be either a method of reform (obviously) or a deterrent. Moreover it's darn expensive.

Washington
A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million).

Nevada
A recent study commissioned by the Nevada legislature found that the average death penalty case costs a half million dollars more than a case in which the death penalty is not sought.

Kansas
Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not sought, according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council.

Idaho
A new, but limited, study of the costs of the death penalty in Idaho found that capital cases are more costly and take much more time to resolve than non-capital cases.

Colorado
A new study of the cost of the death penalty in Colorado revealed that capital proceedings require six times more days in court and take much longer to resolve than life-without-parole (LWOP) cases.

New York
State spent $170 million in 9 years, with no executions

Federal Costs
The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought.
source​

 

[Revoltingest]

I reckon unanimous jury trial would go a long way to reducing wrongful convictions, what do you think? If there's just one wrongful conviction out of all the executions, would that be too many for you? Is there an acceptable level? I know you're not a fan of war, but in the event we ever have to wage war, say we're attacked, we'll have to accept the possibility of innocent casualties. If the death penalty is an effective deterrent, would the benefits outweigh the possible one or two wrongful convictions?

I don't know what maximum number of wrongful executions would make it OK.
But I do know that juries can be stupid, prosecutors can be predatory, & cops can be corrupt.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I reckon unanimous jury trial would go a long way to reducing wrongful convictions, what do you think? If there's just one wrongful conviction out of all the executions, would that be too many for you? Is there an acceptable level? I know you're not a fan of war, but in the event we ever have to wage war, say we're attacked, we'll have to accept the possibility of innocent casualties. If the death penalty is an effective deterrent, would the benefits outweigh the possible one or two wrongful convictions?

If the one or two was your mum and daughter ?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

I lack the morality to be for or against it.
If it's going to be in place it should be as cost effective as possible, meaning just shoot them in the head instead of celling them for twenty years.

In the case of conviction, it should only be used in the cases where DNA evidence ties the criminal to the crime in a way that is undeniable.
As for the crimes, serial murders, serial rape, slave distribution and anything of equal nature.

Again, it should be cost effective. Shoot them in the head a couple times (double-tap) a day or two after conviction and be done with it.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm against the death penalty. For one, I like giving people the opportunity to repent and change their thinking internally and help their spiritual condition. 2) It also seems cruel and barbaric. 3) Forgiveness is healthier than vengeance. 4) Court convictions can be in error too.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If the one or two was your mum and daughter ?

Same question can be given to those were killed as collateral in a war. If the effective deterrent reduces crime significantly, and thus saves more lives, then perhaps one or two is acceptable.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't know what maximum number of wrongful executions would make it OK.
But I do know that juries can be stupid, prosecutors can be predatory, & cops can be corrupt.

I dunno, for the entire jury to be stupid sounds pretty improbable. In our current majority jury system that is more of an issue, but in unanimous you can just have one sound voice and prevent the execution.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I reckon unanimous jury trial would go a long way to reducing wrongful convictions, what do you think? If there's just one wrongful conviction out of all the executions, would that be too many for you? Is there an acceptable level? I know you're not a fan of war, but in the event we ever have to wage war, say we're attacked, we'll have to accept the possibility of innocent casualties. If the death penalty is an effective deterrent, would the benefits outweigh the possible one or two wrongful convictions?

Some people are calculated killers , can never be let out again into society , right or wrong to value the life of another that see no value in yours ? morally speaking
Some people are beyond repair prior to actually murdering anyone due to terrible life experience topped off by execution for something they didn't understand was wrong.
The most disgusting crimes with overwhelming evidence and no remorse then I guess ones options are limited.

 

[Deathbydefault]

For one, I like giving people the opportunity to repent and change their thinking internally and help their spiritual condition. 2) It also seems cruel and barbaric. 3) Forgiveness is healthier than vengeance.

Even in the situation of a child molester that has violated and sodomized multiple children, perhaps your own (if you have any) included?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Same question can be given to those were killed as collateral in a war. If the effective deterrent reduces crime significantly, and thus saves more lives, then perhaps one or two is acceptable.

War and justice are comparable ? From whos side ? Both ?haha OK

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Some people are calculated killers , can never be let out again into society , right or wrong to value the life of another that see no value in yours ? morally speaking
Some people are beyond repair prior to actually murdering anyone due to terrible life experience topped off by execution for something they didn't understand was wrong.
The most disgusting crimes with overwhelming evidence and no remorse then I guess ones options are limited.

I don't support death penalty out of some revenge emotion but if it's an effective deterrent I support it. Why is it more humane to make them rot in jail for the rest of their lives?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I don't support death penalty out of some revenge emotion but if it's an effective deterrent I support it. Why is it more humane to make them rot in jail for the rest of their lives?

Would rather rot in jail myself with hope of Acquittal by appeals than be executed for something I didn't do .
UK has no death penalty , or firearms is different worlds I guess

 

[George-ananda]

Even in the situation of a child molester that has violated and sodomized multiple children, perhaps your own (if you have any) included?

Well, I would have a personal struggle, wouldn't I? If my child was killed, I guess I would not want to know, see or think about the guy again.