Capital Punishment

I am for it, in theory. If you can apply capital punishment in an impartial way that does not take into consideration race, gender, education, socioeconomic status, etc., then I'm all for it; but only in the most heinous crimes (e.g. Murder with malice aforethought) and with no possibility of remorse/rehabilitation.

However, given out criminal justice system, I don't feel that we can implement such a punishment fairly. Now, if I were a judge or governor, I'd be more inclined to believe I could be impartial.

Fiscally, it's also less taxing (no pun intended) to not execute persons, due to the appeals processes/higher cost of incarcerating felons on death row.

 

No. States cannot be trusted with that power, and regardless, it's wrong for so many reasons.

 

Against. The thuggish mentality of "Eye for an eye" should be a shameful thing of the past not of the present.

 

I am against it.

 

No. What if the person was actually innocent? Anyway, surely by killing them you become a murderer and must be executed, and your executioner becomes a murderer...
I don't agree with it at all.

 

Against it in all cases, and I agree with both the aforementioned reasons. What if you execute someone who, later, turns out to be innocent? Also, an eye for an eye makes the world blind. It's inhumane.

Besides that, an execution costs way more than sentencing someone to life in prison.

 

There are a large number of reasons, but I won't mention all.

I'll just leave it with this; you can release an imprisoned person, but you can't unkill them. Even if they are guilty, I bitterly oppose the idea that courts have the right to order someone to their death.

Justice should not be irreversible if it is to remain just. Justice cannot kill people for doing the same if we value a fair, humanitarian legal system.

 

Against. I have never seen the sense in capital punishment. If we focus on punishing the crime only, surely the greater punishment is denying someone their liberty for life? If I were convicted of a very serious offence and given the choice between death now or the remainder of my life incarcerated within the same four walls - with no prospect of parole - I'd choose death. I'd actually want it over with immediately. To my mind, you punish people more by locking them up and throwing away the key.

Example: British child killer Ian Brady has been on a hunger strike for a number of years now as he wants to die. He was handed a whole life sentence in the late 1960's, with no prospect of parole. For a number of years now he has been on a hunger strike to hasten his end, but the authorities continue to keep him alive through force feeding. For Brady, the death penalty (capital punishment) would be a blessed release from his life sentence, but the courts will not allow it.

 

Completely against it. It's simply in humane and courts aren't perfect

 

No, because we have to make sure that child molesters suffer for what they did. Death is too good for them. Can't we just pretend that we're going to kill them, film it, and laugh at them? But that might be a waste of time and money. It doesn't remove the pain of their victims.

I'm all for imprisonment if they don't get out. The main reason I'd want child molesters to be executed is because it makes certain that they never hurt anyone else. Some people are incapable of remorse and they fake it and suck up to the system because they're hoping to get out and do the same damn thing again. Too dangerous for society. I think many people can change and benefit from rehabilitation, but there are a few crimes that should never be forgiven.

 

I'm against capital punishment for most people but for people like Anders Behring Breivik who have murdered many innocent people then I think it should be allowed but only after long trials.

 

Yes. But then again, we don't need capital punishment if someone writes their own death sentence from pissing off the prison gangs.

 

In some cases, yes it is needed.

Terrorist, mafia/durg cartel or cult leaders are still effective and add people to their ranks even if they are locked up in some place. It is better to get rid of them as soon as their usefulness (like squeezing out any information) ended.

Also there are some people who are way beyond help. Take a look at this very disturbing list. I feel like it is a shame to call those monsters human.

 

Mostly against, principally because there have been far too many people going to death row who are innocent, or who were incompetently defended. In the US, it is "justice" for the poor.

I'm with the Talmudic rabbis on this one: keep it as an option, there are real monsters out there, but they also said that the courts could be called "murderous" if they implemented it more often than every 70 years or so...

 

I believe in a proportional punishment to fit the crime. Such is the meaning of justice.

Happy days

 

I am definitely against it.

 

I put it depends on circumstances

 

What gives you the right to take away the life of another human being who can reason and talk and has morals, even if they chose to break them.

I also reason that the purpose of the legal system is not to punish people but to rehabilitate them and keep them away from the public until they are rehabilitated to keep the public safe.

 

No, I don't support it, and I'm glad our state finally got rid of it. This isn't the middle ages.