What is your opinion on the Death Penalty

Are you actually saying that I am not rational for thinking that ANY innocent put to death is significant?

No, I'm saying that you're irrational for insinuating that 135 is not a minimal number when compared to the thousands of murderers and rapists that are executed.

Oy -- let me try one more time. ONE is too many -- perhaps if you knew one you would feel the same. THAT is why I do not support the death penalty as it is practiced. I have no problem with it in principle but cannot support it unless guilt is a CERTAINTY which it rarely is.

"One is too many" is an irrational claim. If one person smokes marijuana, goes for a joy-ride and winds up killing someone, should we ban marijuana completely? No. Hence, if one innocent person out of thousands of murderers is executed, we should not ban the death penalty.

In cases where a felon is sentenced to death, the certainty of his guilt is usually 100%

"In cases where a felon is sentenced to death, the certainty of his guilt is usually 100%"
http://www.witnesstoinnocence...

Again, one case out of thousands.

Damn, you are cold! Give me one good reason to risk another when life without parole is possible and we all know the death penalty is no deterrent.

If you give one life without parole, then he can continue committing crimes in prison without caring for the consequences of his actions (for example, if he kills someone, you can't punish him more because he's already received the maximum sentence; also, even if they did lock him in solitary confinement, eventually he would be released and thus able to kill again).

Excellent reason.

So to save some con from the possibility of harm (although convicted murderers on life without parole could and should be isolated from the general population), you advocate the death penalty. We are just going to have to disagree about this. Ironic given that later on this post I DO say that if I knew 100% that the person was guilty, I could agree to the death penalty and could flip the switch (so to speak) myself.

we dont know how many murders have gotten off because of a bunch of crooked lawyers,,look at o.j. simpson,as one example.

remember Johnny A. Johnson from the st.louis area???
http://www.angelfire.com/mac/...



yup take out the trash,, get rid of em..

Killers and serial rapists deserve to die.

Now I say if we're going to do things right, it should be a wheel of fortune kind of thing where a week before the deed, the felon spins and that's the method he will die by. Hanging, burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, drowning, waterboarding, the electric shock couch, firing squad, guillotine, torn apart by wild beasts, etc. The week before should put a lot of fear into the convict, and none of this last meal of their choice BS.

Then they shoudl be televised on pay per view with the proceeds going to the victim's family

I completely approve of the death penalty. There are some people who just plain enjoy doing absolutely horrendous things and there is no rehabilitating them.

I disapprove for several reasons, not the least of which is that it doesn't work. If it did, there would be no more murders.

Second, many death row inmates have been freed through DNA technology not available when they were convicted. This means many of those already executed were innocent. Even one innocent person executed is unacceptable.

Third, it is morally wrong. The fifth commandment forbids anyone killing anyone, for any reason. Those who call themselves pro-life and then condone the death penalty are living contradictions.

What about in war? That's the one that always baffled me. It's okay to kill people in combat and you're a hero, but do it in society and you're the scum of the earth.

You are right. War is terrible, and usually preventable, and we need to work to outlaw its existence. Why do pro-lifers usually support wars?

Capital crimes deserve capital punishment. I believe that murderers and rapists chould be put to death immediately after sentencing. That being said, I believe our justice system needs an overhaul so that those that are found guilty are proven so without a shadow of a doubt. There are way too many innocent people on death row.

Like seriously, what is the point in killing someone because they killed soneone (or something) What does that prove? That you're just as low? Making them suffer and keeping them in jail till they die is better than killing them.

It is the best deterrent..Once proven, armed robbers and murders should be hung at dawn the very next day..

It has been demonstrated over and over again by statistic it is not a deterrent. For law abiding people like you and I it might be other than the fact we wouldn't do it to begin with.

It works here..The worlds lowest crime rates..Saudi Arabia # 1 lowest and Qatar # 2 lowest..

You can't simply look at it that way. You need to look at changes when laws are changed. When a country stops capital punishment if it is a deterrent then crime should jump. It doesn't. When it is added it should drop. It doesn't.

Canada's homicide rate is far lower that the usa but we have no capital punishment at all. It proves nothing - the cultures are different etc.

if murder was a mandatory death sentence,and,iit had to be carried out within thirty days,i believe that it wouuld be a deterant.the reason that it is not now,is because of these crooked lawyers and judges.sadam hussan didn,t have people going around killing,they knew that when they were caught that the would be tourtured and killed..

You believe it would be and yet statistics disagree.
To me it seems reasonable that any death sentence would be a deterrent and yet it is not. Being that death does not deter is seems unlikely that a someone sooner death would not either.

What if they are found to be innocent the day after? Many armed robberies are committed by unemployed persons desperate to feed their families. If they are executed the next day, who will feed the families?

we,re talking about after conviction beyond reasonable doubt..

Many persons convicted beyond reasonable doubt were later found by newly available technology to be innocent. Many of those had already been executed. How was the death penalty effective in their cases?

No one deserves to die.

even if they killd sum1 it is not up 2 us 2 take a life

Right you are. Isn't putting a murderer do death, murder?! Why is it okay for the Government???

EXACTLY!! ppl hav given th govm. too much lee-way

Murderers should die the way their victim died! Rapisits and child molesters should be hung in public to set an example!

My initial reaction to the heinous crimes that death rowers commit is to fry them, no hesitation. BUT I am undecided because in my faith, it is taught that vengeance is the Lord's. However there are other verses like, "an eye for and eye" but where does that eye stop, with the executioner? I do not feel that I am educated enough in my faith or spirituality to have a definitive opinion on it.

jesus said,,he that lives by the sword,,dies by the sword..

I have no problem with capital punishment in principle, but I am opposed to it because it's practice is imperfect. Many sitting on death row have been proven innocent by DNA testing. When I saw the OJ Simpson case and heard lawyers say that many on death row have been convicted on less evidence because they had less $$ for lawyers, I knew I had to change my position on the death penalty. That said, when it is an open and shut case, serial killer, DNA proven killer, confessed killer, I have no problem with them offing him.

Would you "off" him yourself?

Under those circumstances (positive of guilt) YEP.

I guess that is one of the things that is easier to say than do.

Wouldn't you be worried to risk you peace of mind if you found out later they were wrong, and (s)he was innocent?

Would you do it if it was someone you knew? What if it was your cousin, your brother, your son?

I am pretty sure I qualified my answer by saying that I would have to absolutely certain -- DNA evidence etc. This discussion is ironic given that I am arguing at another point on this same thread that ONE innocent put to death is one too many--thus, my reason for NOT supporting the death penalty. But I repeat--if I knew for certain that the person was guilty, I could do it. You did not begin by asking if I could do it to a relative or friend -- no, I could not, and no one should be asked to.

And you did not disclaim that the person you could kill must be a complete stranger, hence my questions.

You do say you disprove it, but you also say death punishment is a fair deal if there is absolute certainty about someone's guilt. You even go that far to say you could kill that person yourself.

But then again, if that person was, say, your brother, you say you couldn't, no matter if his guilt was proved with absolutely certainty or not. I bet in you probably wouldn't think death punishment is a fair deal at all that case.

Wow! What kind of shabby two-faced ethics is that, darling?

The only irony here is the how easily it crosses your lips to "off" a human life.

Coming back to the complete stranger again: He probably has a sister, too. What does it say about someone who would "off" other people's brothers, sons and fathers so readily?

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.