Is the Death Penalty Necessary?
SodaHead News
2012/04/24 20:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
630 votes
|
|
64% | |||
|
351 votes
|
|
36% | |||
California is putting another controversial measure on its ballot this year -- and you can expect to hear a lot more about it as it progresses. Activists collected 500,000 signatures to repeal the death penalty, a measure which would take 723 inmates off of death row and replace their sentence with life in prison. The death penalty is already off the table in 16 other states, and will soon be repealed in Connecticut.
The measure is significant in California because the state holds an enormous percentage of the nation's death row inmates (nearly a quarter, according to Yahoo! News). However, the state has only executed 13 people since 1976, compared to 481 executions in Texas. Activists argue that, regardless of moral issues, the state is spending billions of dollars on a system that rarely goes through with executions. Do you think the death penalty is necessary?
The measure is significant in California because the state holds an enormous percentage of the nation's death row inmates (nearly a quarter, according to Yahoo! News). However, the state has only executed 13 people since 1976, compared to 481 executions in Texas. Activists argue that, regardless of moral issues, the state is spending billions of dollars on a system that rarely goes through with executions. Do you think the death penalty is necessary?
Top Opinion
-
RoseyRhod 2012/04/24 20:37:26No
+24I oppose the death penalty not because I feel that someone who acually committed a terrible crime deserves any mercy, but because there are cases in which I think people who were not actually guilty were put to death. Better that we should jail the scum for life than inadvertently put to death one innocent person. However, I don't believe that prisons should be as cushy as they currently are. Inmates should not be allowed to watch television or have porno magazines. They should have access to a library. They should also have to work, and they should be carefully watched at all times. I may disagree with Joe Arpaio on profiling, but I fully agree with him that inmates should not be coddled. If you do the crime, the time served should not be easy.
My biggest issue with capital punishment, however, is that the judicial system is not perfect. As soon as an innocent person is executed (which I'm certain has happened at some point, regardless of whether it's yet come to light) then that becomes no less than murder and should not be tolerated.
I believe the death penalty serves the following purposes (& this is off the top of my head, not from a professional source):
1. It removes at least one more evil person from the Earth & it is JUST. That, in itself, should be sufficient.
2. It allows the family & friends of the victim(s) to move on in their lives, & they won't have to relive the murders every year at the murderer's parole hearing (assuming he doesn't get life without parole, which is rare).
3. They & society do not have to be concerned that the murderer will be released from prison for "good behavior" or because of prison overcrowding.
4. It prevents the murderer or rapist/pedophile from getting a law degree, enjoying art & painting, being provided the privilege of reading & watching TV, developing friendships, & seeing his notoriety displayed in newspapers, the internet &/or the sensationalism-driven left-wing media keeping his name in the forefront of the news.
I do think he should be allowed some time with a Christian pastor-teacher in order for him to be presented the Gospel for the salvation of his soul, if he agrees to it & if he...&&
I believe the death penalty serves the following purposes (& this is off the top of my head, not from a professional source):
1. It removes at least one more evil person from the Earth & it is JUST. That, in itself, should be sufficient.
2. It allows the family & friends of the victim(s) to move on in their lives, & they won't have to relive the murders every year at the murderer's parole hearing (assuming he doesn't get life without parole, which is rare).
3. They & society do not have to be concerned that the murderer will be released from prison for "good behavior" or because of prison overcrowding.
4. It prevents the murderer or rapist/pedophile from getting a law degree, enjoying art & painting, being provided the privilege of reading & watching TV, developing friendships, & seeing his notoriety displayed in newspapers, the internet &/or the sensationalism-driven left-wing media keeping his name in the forefront of the news.
I do think he should be allowed some time with a Christian pastor-teacher in order for him to be presented the Gospel for the salvation of his soul, if he agrees to it & if he's never heard the Truth of Jesus Christ. Then, after he either accepts or rejects Jesus Christ, death should be swift & humane, & not drawn out for years.
Are executioner's also murderer's? If not, please explain. You would agree that they are capable of killing a human being in cold-blood?
Killing, to differentiate it from murder, is taking someone's life while defending one's property, person, family, society, or country, to prevent subsequent murders by a person, or in retribution for a murder after a fair & unbiased court trial. In other words, a person who kills another person in self-defense or to prevent the evils of invasion by another country for greed, power, or political takeover is taking someone's life for a righteous reason.
All murderers should receive the death penalty, and there should be no insanity defense. Your "only murderers that cannot afford competent legal representation, are poor, and comes from a minority group" is vile & an obviously liberal & bigoted POV for you to even ask it. Rich white murderers should receive the same rope, volt of electricity, guillotine, firing squad, or drug injection as a minority or poor person.
I would hope that all attorneys ar...
&
&&&
Killing, to differentiate it from murder, is taking someone's life while defending one's property, person, family, society, or country, to prevent subsequent murders by a person, or in retribution for a murder after a fair & unbiased court trial. In other words, a person who kills another person in self-defense or to prevent the evils of invasion by another country for greed, power, or political takeover is taking someone's life for a righteous reason.
All murderers should receive the death penalty, and there should be no insanity defense. Your "only murderers that cannot afford competent legal representation, are poor, and comes from a minority group" is vile & an obviously liberal & bigoted POV for you to even ask it. Rich white murderers should receive the same rope, volt of electricity, guillotine, firing squad, or drug injection as a minority or poor person.
I would hope that all attorneys are "competent", or they should not have been allowed to pass the bar exam. A penal system run by a conservative would insure that ALL attorneys paid by the state are competent, but then we don't have government programs that are typically run by conservatives.
If by executioner you mean the person who injects the drug, pulls the hangman's noose, or pulls the device that electrocutes a person after a jury has found that person guilty of murder or violent rape, then "no", these people come under the category of "killers" whose job is to protect society, as well as for retribution & to prevent the murderer from ever doing it again. See my definition of murder.
And no, I would not agree that an executioner is capable of killing a human being "in cold blood", as that would infer an evil intent and would be "murder".
If ever asked, I would have no problem with being an "executioner" as defined above. I also think these events should be televised for three reasons: 1) to help deter other murders, & 2) to allow the public to see at least one government program that is not wasting their tax money by a corrupt system, & 3) for appellate trial review. I also think it might be a good idea to video all murder trials for later viewing by anyone who questions the validity & reliability of the process for any given trial.
2. All murderer's are not sentenced to death. There are approximately 3450 death row inmates nationwide. Over average there are more than 10000 murders per year.
3. Can you identify the last wealthy American executed in this country?
4. Do you believe that our judicial system is such that there is zero chance that an innocent person can be wrongly executed?
5. Executions are a cold-blooded method of killing another human being. Those capable of participating in this barbaric ritual are no more moral than the persons they kill.
6. All executioners are volunteers (those participating in such "murder"). It is not a job requirement. They do it to make extra money, like overtime pay. How sinister and cold-blooded is that?
2. Okay.
3. Nope, nor does it bother me. If a rich person wants someone murdered, they usually pay for someone else to do it.
4. No, but now we have DNA & other laboratory forensics that is much more defined than in earlier times. There still needs to be a 2nd witness to the murder as required by law. We'll just hope the "innocent" perp has his spiritual affairs in order prior to his death, or that God intercedes. We each go when our number is up, no matter the reason or by who's hand.
5. That is your opinion, & you are welcome to have one, wrong though it may be.
6. See #5.
That is your mindset?
Arbitraraily and capriciously executing people based on the political and social whims of prosecutors, judges and juries, is fine by you?
I strongly disagree, but I suspect that our positions are cemented. So be it.
Bottomline, executions ARE NOT necessary. So why kill unnecessarily? Therefore, they should be abolished.
I'd rather criminals die at the hands of their victims, or at the hands of someone coming to the victims aid, long before authorities get involved. Yes, that means being armed. Nobody should ever leave home unarmed, or even be at home unarmed. Not because I want people fighting in the streets but just the opposite. If concealed hand guns were as common as cell phones, we'd have a lot less violent crime.
I believe the death penalty serves the following purposes (& this is off the top of my head, not from a professional source):
1. It removes at least one more evil person from the Earth & it is JUST. That, in itself, should be sufficient.
2. It allows the family & friends of the victim(s) to move on in their lives, & they won't have to relive the murders every year at the murderer's parole hearing (assuming he doesn't get life without parole, which is rare).
3. They & society do not have to be concerned that the murderer will be released from prison for "good behavior" or because of prison overcrowding.
4. It prevents the murderer or rapist/pedophile from getting a law degree, enjoying art & painting, being provided the privilege of reading & watch TV, developing friendships, & seeing his notoriety displayed in newspapers, the internet &/or the senationalism-driven left-wing media keep his name in the forefront of the news.
I do think he should be allowed some time with a Christian pastor-teacher in order for him to be presented the Gospel for the salvation of his soul, if he agrees to it & if he's neve...&&
I believe the death penalty serves the following purposes (& this is off the top of my head, not from a professional source):
1. It removes at least one more evil person from the Earth & it is JUST. That, in itself, should be sufficient.
2. It allows the family & friends of the victim(s) to move on in their lives, & they won't have to relive the murders every year at the murderer's parole hearing (assuming he doesn't get life without parole, which is rare).
3. They & society do not have to be concerned that the murderer will be released from prison for "good behavior" or because of prison overcrowding.
4. It prevents the murderer or rapist/pedophile from getting a law degree, enjoying art & painting, being provided the privilege of reading & watch TV, developing friendships, & seeing his notoriety displayed in newspapers, the internet &/or the senationalism-driven left-wing media keep his name in the forefront of the news.
I do think he should be allowed some time with a Christian pastor-teacher in order for him to be presented the Gospel for the salvation of his soul, if he agrees to it & if he's never heard the Truth of Jesus Christ. Then, after he either accepts or rejects Jesus Christ, death should be swift & humane, & not drawn out for years.
May I add that you mis-apply the "Judge not lest ye be judged, ..." verse of the Bible. Do you honestly think that Jesus thought we should not have a court system or prisons, or that we should not defend ourselves in wars or in our homes? If this is what you believe, then you do not know the God I know from the Bible.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in capital punishment.
But I do not necessarily believe it is a deterrent. I mean, it hasn't seemed to stop anyone from committing heinous crimes in the first place.
Interesting.
I agree on one hand. But on the other, there have proven to be many on death row who were, indeed, innocent of the crime they were sentenced for. In the time between passing sentence & the carrying out of the sentence, new evidence or new technology comes out that does, indeed, prove the person's innocence (or guilt).
I think the time can be quite beneficial.
However, you are absolutely right. Putting someone, even a loathsome monster, in a hole for 8-10 years just doesn't sound like we, The People, are any better than the so-called "monster."
I guess I must add that I would have to say that in some areas of the nation, the death penalty is not used enough (in my opinion), whereas in others it is quite definitely over-used.
I don't know what the answer is, honestly. I do know that I believe in the death penalty. I do not believe it is a deterrent to crime. I do not believe it is a good punishment. I do not believe it is a revenge act. I believe that there are individuals we simply need to rid from our population. Yup. That does indeed sound a bit Fascist. It isn't. I'm quite far from being Fascist in any way. I don't believe it is necessary to torture them. I don't even think it's necessary to punish them. I think that there are certain individua...&&
&
Interesting.
I agree on one hand. But on the other, there have proven to be many on death row who were, indeed, innocent of the crime they were sentenced for. In the time between passing sentence & the carrying out of the sentence, new evidence or new technology comes out that does, indeed, prove the person's innocence (or guilt).
I think the time can be quite beneficial.
However, you are absolutely right. Putting someone, even a loathsome monster, in a hole for 8-10 years just doesn't sound like we, The People, are any better than the so-called "monster."
I guess I must add that I would have to say that in some areas of the nation, the death penalty is not used enough (in my opinion), whereas in others it is quite definitely over-used.
I don't know what the answer is, honestly. I do know that I believe in the death penalty. I do not believe it is a deterrent to crime. I do not believe it is a good punishment. I do not believe it is a revenge act. I believe that there are individuals we simply need to rid from our population. Yup. That does indeed sound a bit Fascist. It isn't. I'm quite far from being Fascist in any way. I don't believe it is necessary to torture them. I don't even think it's necessary to punish them. I think that there are certain individuals who simply need to be eliminated, not to ever be worried about again. That is how I believe. Now, would I prefer that elimination to take place quickly & neatly... of course. However, I'm a realist. I also know that it's important not to be too rash & end up wiping out someone who is innocent of their accusation.
It's far too complex a question to be answered adequately here.
But the discussion is definitely interesting &, hopefully, beneficial.
I think it is necessary, partly because torture's against the Constitution, but I also think that they need to clean up the appeals process associated with it, which is what really costs money. They should also allow inmates to choose things like hanging, firing range, that sort of thing. Let them opt for a cheaper route.