Quantcast

Are you in Favor of or Against the Death Penalty?

jes constantine 2012/06/27 20:57:24
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ♥K14 2012/06/27 20:58:41
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    ♥K14
    +4
    Not just for murderers.
    Rapists, Child molesters, terrorists, and many other cases....

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lawrence 2012/09/12 08:02:38
    I am against the death penalty in all cases.
    Lawrence
    I recognise why people advocate capital punishment, it may have a place within natural law. though the USA is far removed from a state of natural law, so would be terrible now. It is much easier not to even consider it yet.
  • Silversnake 2012/06/28 17:26:08
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    Silversnake
    +1
    I don't even think murder is the only crime someone should be punished for with death...
  • Stephen Uhl 2012/06/28 17:00:49
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    Stephen Uhl
    This article arguing against ALL use of the death penalty shows an embarrassing lack of critical thinking apparently endorsed by AHA. And as a life member of AHA, I am embarrassed to the point of anger with AHA. We atheists and humanists need to give a good example of consistent and logical (truly critical) thinking to the world--if we really want them to eventually agree with our life stance.

    For a less embarrassing analysis of the truly complex matter of such extreme punishment, I encourage the reader to read pp. 157 - 160 of the little paperback, Out of God's Closet: This Priest Psychologist Chooses FRIENDLY Atheism. As the author of that presentation, I would not change anything. In fact, I will try to copy and paste that whole section here, but it may be too long to be acceptable. (If so, try to find it elsewhere; you would not regret it.)
    GROSSLY IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF
    OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM

    Yet another blessing of non-theism or atheism for American society
    could be immense. What if our justice system were so nonreligious
    that Old Testament type of vengeful punishment of criminals were
    not necessary? What if judges judged reasonably instead of doing
    the biblical eye-for-an-eye bit for criminals? Our extremely sick
    justice system now insists that punishment must fit ...






























































































































    This article arguing against ALL use of the death penalty shows an embarrassing lack of critical thinking apparently endorsed by AHA. And as a life member of AHA, I am embarrassed to the point of anger with AHA. We atheists and humanists need to give a good example of consistent and logical (truly critical) thinking to the world--if we really want them to eventually agree with our life stance.

    For a less embarrassing analysis of the truly complex matter of such extreme punishment, I encourage the reader to read pp. 157 - 160 of the little paperback, Out of God's Closet: This Priest Psychologist Chooses FRIENDLY Atheism. As the author of that presentation, I would not change anything. In fact, I will try to copy and paste that whole section here, but it may be too long to be acceptable. (If so, try to find it elsewhere; you would not regret it.)
    GROSSLY IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF
    OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM

    Yet another blessing of non-theism or atheism for American society
    could be immense. What if our justice system were so nonreligious
    that Old Testament type of vengeful punishment of criminals were
    not necessary? What if judges judged reasonably instead of doing
    the biblical eye-for-an-eye bit for criminals? Our extremely sick
    justice system now insists that punishment must fit the crime.
    Reasoned consequences or responsible restitution is really what
    should fit the crime, not punishment as such. Taxpayers cough
    up over $30,000 per year per criminal in prison, violent or not;
    this exceeds the annual cost of education at most of our excellent
    universities. We can design and execute really effective probation
    programs for far less!

    What if criminals were sentenced according to their ability to
    be responsible and pay back, make restitution to society in accor-
    dance with their offense against society? Violent criminals would
    stay in jail to protect society, not to punish them. Non-violent
    criminals, under regular and thoughtful probationary supervision,
    would work to heal the society they wounded; they would pay back
    to society according to their talents and financial ability.

    I think it is generally irrational and it should be considered im-
    moral to imprison smart, non-violent people like Martha Stewart
    and those truly major criminals that destroyed Enron, Worldcom,
    Global Crossing and Tyco, in order to punish them. “Vengeance
    is mine, says the Lord!” Please let the Lord punish them! Don’t
    punish or fine already wounded society by taxing society further
    to house the non-violent who do cooperate with rational and
    effective probation programs. Just because it would take some
    serious and extended thought to develop effective reason-based
    probation programs does not excuse us from developing same.
    Why should the above-referenced talented white-collar criminals
    be housed by society when they could be effectively depositing
    millions of dollars every Saturday into the coffers of their local
    probation programs? The basic reason is primarily punishment.
    And what does punishment as such profit society?

    Some of these non-violent executives hurt millions of citizens.
    Why not fine them very, very heavily for the stolen millions or
    billions, the fines of restitution (plus collection costs) to be paid
    off weekly and in person to the responsible legal authorities? It’s
    utterly and inexcusably stupid and wasteful to bury such talent in
    jail, then bill the working taxpayer for their prison expenses (or
    their extensive prison-avoiding legal expenses). Such punishment
    shows an outdated, Old Testament religious concept that further
    punishes an already wounded society!

    Non-violent blue-collar criminals could work at their jobs to
    earn competitive or union scale pay, likewise under responsible
    probationary supervision. They, too, turn in their fines weekly by
    way of restitution to the community or families they wounded.
    Non-violent criminals stay out of jail as long as they obey the strict
    and productive terms of their probation. When will we learn that
    it is very difficult to punish productively? This vengeful punish-
    ment is an idea from Mosaic times and based on an assumed
    God who named himself “Jealous.” The Bible has God saying,
    “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” Let God grab all the vengeance
    he can; a thoughtful, unsuperstitious society needs restitution,
    not vengeance.

    Firm and reliable consequences for irresponsible behavior are
    essential to an intelligent justice system. Punishment commonly
    causes counterproductive anger that deepens the anti-social ten-
    dencies in the criminal. I don’t think it’s reasonable to keep well
    over 2,000,000 Americans (almost one percent of our citizens)
    behind bars when less than 30% of those prisoners are violent
    threats to society (Time Almanac 2000). Punish, punish, punish;
    punish whom? Already injured society!

    No, I am not going soft on crime. As a psychologist, I know
    that the death penalty (I prefer “the death consequence”) is very
    under-utilized, and, yes, contrary to a lot of doctored and biased
    “research reports,” it is a definite deterrent from crime! The next
    time you see any sort of “research report” that concludes that the
    death consequence does not deter, check both the authorship
    and the assumptions of such a report. With only rare exceptions,
    a person’s strongest drive is to continue living. How can such a
    basic fact be ignored by so many?

    A life sentence without possibility of parole for the non-violent
    criminal is generally ludicrous. It punishes the criminal endlessly
    while it expensively punishes the society that has already been
    hurt by the criminal. The death consequence, for those and only
    those who are certainly responsible for the most heinous crimes, is
    often far more appropriate than such outrageous sentences. Never
    should a doubtfully guilty person be executed; but with the help
    of DNA testing, many of the old doubts can be set aside. At the
    very least, the violent criminal under such a silly sentence as “life
    without parole” should be able to choose the death consequence
    as an option. “But, no, only God can take a life.” Baloney! Did
    God kill the drunk driver crashing into the concrete wall?

    Such an illogical stance is about as outrageous as the 2006
    case of California murderer Clarence Allen. He had been sche-
    duled for execution, but at 75, legally blind and nearly deaf, his
    attorneys appealed for a stay of execution all the way to the U.S.
    Supreme Court. And what was the appeal based on? Not that he
    was innocent, not that he did not deserve to be put to death, but
    the appeal was based on fact that if the state were to put such an
    ill old man to death, it would be cruel and unusual punishment!
    Do you think his appeal lawyers were doing their work pro bono,
    or is it much more likely that they were getting paid well for such
    ludicrous appeal efforts?

    Our religiously vengeful politicians, reflecting the attitudes of
    their constituencies, over-legislate and micro-manage our justice
    system more and more, and their lawyer friends capitalize on it
    handsomely. As a result, punishment of the criminal continues to
    grow in importance. One frightening result is that good judges find
    they are impotent to use good judgment, get discouraged, retire
    early and leave the judges’ benches to the more politically correct
    judges. Retiring U.S. district judge, John S. Martin, Jr., wrote in
    The New York Times (2003): “When I took my oath of office 13
    years ago, I never thought I would leave the federal bench. While
    I might have stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer
    want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system.”

    I am barely scratching the surface of this truly immense
    American problem of crime and vengeful punishment. But can
    you already see that many billions of tax dollars could be saved
    annually if vengeful religious-type punishment-of-the-wicked were
    thoughtfully removed from all our penal codes? Would “Codes of
    Consequences” be far better than “Penal Codes”? If the outdated
    concept of punishment as such were removed from our justice
    system and if a system of fair consequences were firmly followed,
    I doubt it would be necessary to lock up about one percent of our
    population as we do now.

    In summary, without superstition life in the United States
    could improve the observance of the First Amendment, reduce
    taxes, increase personal responsibility, deepen unity among U.S.
    and world citizens, improve educational efforts, and vastly improve
    our justice system.
    (more)
  • santa6642 2012/06/28 01:43:35
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    santa6642
    +2
    Drug use, drug selling ,rape, incest , fraud, terrorism, drug manufactors, Armed robbery with any weapon.including bare hands,Cowardness.Wife or husband beating, Abortiom, Too start...
  • America... santa6642 2012/06/28 08:52:08
    American☆Atheist
    Incest and drug use?
  • The Mosher 2012/06/28 01:37:23
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    The Mosher
    +1
    not just murder i believe in extreme cases such as serial raping but my stance is not to abolish it but just to restrict it more make it harder to apply to cases but not to fully ban it
  • redhorse29 2012/06/28 01:16:29
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    redhorse29
    In many case there are some people that do things that cannot be forgiven nor will society feel resolved if they are allowed to live. I am not in-favor with 20-30 years of expensive legal appeals. If you drop the death penalty they make it life without parole . Limit appeals and restrict their access to any outside communication with society to a supervised and severely limited number of people.
  • Ozzyboy 2012/06/27 23:03:22
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    Ozzyboy
    When there is no doubt like the Ft. Hood murderer. It got Ted Bundy off the streets for good. The good people are being massacred daily and pretty soon there will be nothing left but monsters.
  • Rubyking 2012/06/27 21:11:37
    I am against the death penalty in all cases.
    Rubyking
    unless the convicted asks for it
  • Andrew 2012/06/27 21:10:03
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    Andrew
    +3
    I am for the death penalty for murderers and against it for the innocent unborn!
  • Griegg 2012/06/27 21:06:45
    I am against the death penalty in all cases.
    Griegg
    +2
    It's barbaric.
  • Diana Griegg 2012/06/27 22:47:56
    Diana
    +2
    What the criminal did wasn't barbaric?
  • Griegg Diana 2012/06/27 23:00:20
    Griegg
    +1
    Barbaric crimes don't justify barbarism.
  • tblackb 2012/06/27 21:06:40
    I am against the death penalty in all cases.
    tblackb
    +2
    2 many intangible variables. once u impose the penalty u don't get a do over.
  • Diana tblackb 2012/06/27 22:50:12 (edited)
    Diana
    +2
    Neither does the dead victim get a do over.
  • tblackb Diana 2012/06/28 13:41:23 (edited)
    tblackb
    ur assuming that r justice system is perfect and the people in charge always get it right. my point is; r justice system is imperfect and they don't always get it right 4 a variety of reasons. what happens when/if u put an innocent person 2 death 4 a crime they didn't commit? how r u honoring the victim then when their killer is still free? what do u say 2 the family of someone who was put 2 death accidentally? again, there r no do overs....
  • Diana tblackb 2012/06/28 18:28:32
    Diana
    If they have DNA .give them the death penalty.
  • tblackb Diana 2012/06/29 02:32:47
    tblackb
    +1
    if its "indisputable proof", i'd agree with given someone the death penalty 4 taking the life of someone else
  • TasselLady 2012/06/27 21:03:30
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    TasselLady
    +3
    Epecially when it's a child or more than one. No one who murders a child deserves to live, and nobody can tell me different. If you take a life, you should lose your own especially if murder is proven without a shadow of a doubt.
  • Junior the Outer Space Musi... 2012/06/27 21:01:09
    I am against the death penalty in all cases.
    Junior the Outer Space Music Man
    +2
    Life in prison without parole is a suitable punishment.
  • Ozzyboy Junior ... 2012/06/27 23:06:38
    Ozzyboy
    +2
    That doesn't work. Why have the taxpayers paid for the monster Charles Manson to be kept alive. Look at what the Supreme Court just did. They are allowing monsters, because of their age, to have a chance back out on the streets. Is that justice for all the innocent people they brutally murdered?
  • America... Ozzyboy 2012/06/28 08:53:14
    American☆Atheist
    it cost more to put them on death row
  • Ozzyboy America... 2012/06/28 12:50:51
    Ozzyboy
    +1
    Not in potential future victims. What about the cost of their lives?
  • America... Ozzyboy 2012/06/28 22:14:39
    American☆Atheist
    If they are in prison they can't kill anyone else. Murderers are on death row for like 30 years before they are put to death anyway.
  • Ozzyboy America... 2012/06/28 22:48:16
    Ozzyboy
    Tell that to the victims of Ted Bundy.
  • TasselLady Ozzyboy 2012/06/28 20:02:45
    TasselLady
    +1
    EXACTLY. Keep the !#$#$#$@ in prison where he belongs. He's not fit to be out in society with a dog much less a person.
  • Stypayhorlikson♥ 2012/06/27 21:01:02
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    Stypayhorlikson♥
    +3
    only when they truly deserve it.. like when they know for a fact they killed someone dilibratly
  • ♥K14 2012/06/27 20:58:41
    I am in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
    ♥K14
    +4
    Not just for murderers.
    Rapists, Child molesters, terrorists, and many other cases....
  • TasselLady ♥K14 2012/06/28 20:03:35
    TasselLady
    +1
    I wonder if the people who OPPOSE the death penalty would change their minds if it were one of THEIR kids or their other family? I bet they'd change their stance then.
  • ♥K14 TasselLady 2012/06/28 22:16:52
    ♥K14
    +1
    They'll never admit it though... I've asked them many times.
  • TasselLady ♥K14 2012/06/29 20:51:04
    TasselLady
    +1
    I was in a Grand Jury during 4 murders. It's one thing to read it in the papers. But it's something else to actually SEE what these monsters are capable of doing to other human beings. This is why I'm strongly for it. I would rather get rid of these people than use my tax dollars to feed them three square meals a day when other people are out of work and starving.
  • ♥K14 TasselLady 2012/06/30 00:18:49
    ♥K14
    +1
    Same here.
    I really can't see any logic in the people who argue against it.
  • Your Favorite Nerd 2012/06/27 20:58:30
    I am against the death penalty in all cases.
    Your Favorite Nerd
    +2
    Life in prison is a better option

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 09:53:18

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals