This is one of my greatest problems. As much as I want to end the death penalty, I can't help but think how I'd react to a violent crime. If someone raped or killed one of my sisters, I'd want to kill that SOB right back. It's quite a conundrum for me.
Why do you think it is wrong? If you're going to debate, then you need some hard evidence.
Anyways, we need it because jailbirds are payed by the taxpayers' money, and if we have a murderer or a rapist that is locked behind bars for life, we have to pay hundreds of dollars a day to keep him in jail, where we could pay a one- time pay to kill the bastard, and not worry about it. And it is a proven study that death and pain for punishment makes more of an impact against crime, and they actually think twice about doing whatever, because they will die, or get their arms broken or something like that.
Absolutely! We've used it since time began! No since in stopping now. There are some prisoners that truly deserve to die for their crimes! As long as the punishment fits the crime, I'm all for it! Man, they are gonna hate me when I'm old enough for Jury Duty!
And I think it's wrong. There are just too many variables. Was the person that committed the crime mentally ill? Is he/she actually innocent? Did he/she have adequate legal representation? It's even cheaper to keep prisoner alive then it is to kill him. [url]http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084[/url]
Lynoth, that's a good link. It's short but makes it's point.
thepyro, I think it is wrong because 1) It does cost more then life in prison and 2) it conflicts with my faith and values. Taking someone's life like that is wrong, no more description needed, really.
Innocent until proven guilty I always say. So the court is law, and the court said that the poor chap has to die. He must really did do the crime, how would you have proven that he be innocent or ill? There's a reason why the supreme court is absolute in following death penalty cases; they use the best lawyers, the best judges, the best prosecutors, the best everything. They would tear the crime scenes into scrap searching for clues, because they have to make sure that what the witnesses say is true.
If anyone wants to go find my rules for court procedures, go look for it in the "accidental murder" thread, somewhere in page 2 I think. That gives you all the basic info for how a court does its job.
What if they were framed? If someone was someone was sentenced to death then proved innocent I'd want only one person else to die, and it's not the little SOB who committed the crime, I want the judge dead!! *calms down* excuse me for a moment...
Welllllllll...that does not happen to often. And we can not turn hundreds and hundreds of criminals back onto the streets because rarely an innocent person was killed.
And quite frankly my overall response is:sucks for them...
With methods such as DNA comparison becoming more and more accurate by the year, I would say the death penalty is becoming safer to give to people. This is one of my more conservative issues. Letting people rot in jail with three square meals a day, cable television, workout time, and time outside doesn't sound like a good punishment to me. That's better than I live sometimes, and I'm not even a felon.
So, yes, support the death penalty. Anything less isn't punishment, and is a waste of our money as taxpayers.
