I'm opposed to the death penalty. I don't think it is a good use of resources and mistakes are made that cannot be undone (wrong person convicted and executed). Plus, if a person has done something bad enough to warrant the death penalty, isn't it better to see them suffer imprisonment than release them through death?

I've never seen it deter anything. I only see it as societal revenge.

No, it is not.

I look forward to complete abolishment.

Which is not at all to say that there are not plenty of people do not deserve to walk the face of the earth.

I don’t believe it is a deterrent. And I don’t have a problem with morality of the death penalty. I have only 2 problems with the death penalty. 1 the cost. 2 it isn’t fool proof. There have been many people put to death that were innocent. Fix those 3problems and I would say go for it.

If it was a deterrent then there would be a significant drop in capital crimes which mostly consist of murder. As a matter of fact, states without the death penalty have lower murder rates.

[deathpenaltyinfo.org]

[deathpenaltyinfo.org]

[deathpenaltyinfo.org]

Plus like you said, it costs the taxpayers more, oddly enough.

There have been many people who have been falsely imprisoned. Why take the chance on putting someone to death who might not have committed the crime? You might say the percentages are worth it, but what if it was you or a family member that was wrongfully convicted? So you have the issue of it costing more and possibly putting the wrong person to death. That's enough for me to be against the death penalty. In general, it seems like a great idea if the evidence is incontrovertible, but there's always the chance that it's not. How many people have been found to be wrongly imprisoned after 10, 15, 25 years and let go? At least they have a second chance at life. There's no coming back from death, obviously.

It seems to me that the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates. Probably not a deterrent, I guess.

I think the death penalty is revenge, pure and simple. The state is acting as a family's agent to avenge someone's death.

If we spent more on schools, we'd spend less on prisons.

Myself with a degree in criminology/juvenile correction, I have a more radical view on the death penalty. Now if a person is found guilty hands down with all the evidence in the world showing against them, I feel they should be executed immediately after sentencing. Unfortunately the due process in this country says differant with years upon years of waiting for appeals to happen, hence the inmate stays on death row with all the ammenities(commissairy, three hot meals served to them, books, cable TV, College courses) until the end of his or her days. This is a fraction of why WE the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
As for it being a deterrant, I believe for most part people they can grasp the concept of death, as for others it's more of a badge of honor within their subculture(gangs)even if they don't get the death penalty. It puts them high on a pedastool and gives them "street creds" within a facility.

I believe the government should in no way the involved with taking the lives of its own citizens. Period.

1. There is no logic in the death penalty; if we kill someone because they have killed, we have done what they did, and thereby lose any argument in favour of capital punishment. Pure Hypocrisy.
2. There is no morality in the death penalty; see previous.
3. There is no morality in deciding whether or not we should kill someone because of the financial implications either way; placing finances over life.
4. Most murders are unplanned, spur of the moment reactions to a situation. We all carry out these types of reaction, especially in moments of high stress. Execution means taking a life because of the consequences of a natural human reaction, and not because of the reaction itself, which is a basic human behaviour. ‘There but for the grace of god goeth I’, if I may be excused the reference.
5. Ref 4); execution is vengeance, not justice.

If killers were acting rationally when they killed, then the dealth penalty would be a deterrent in two senses: (1) it eliminates the killer so that he or she cannot kill again, (2) the potential killer would reason that killing is not work the risk. Buyt, most killers are not acting rationally.

The important thing is remove a threat to the lives of others. A hard life penalty accomplishes that and makes the perpetrator pay for a much loner period of time.

One thing that can be said - the killer or pedophile or whoever, will not commit their offense ever again.
As far as cost - that is generated by the legal mish-mash that seems to tie up the actual sentence. I'd prefer that the guillotine is brought back - arrested > jailed> sentenced > slice !

I'm against the death penalty only because I know we have executed scores of innocent people. If our justice system was based on getting to the truth it would be different, but it is not. It is about winning and losing. Having said that if you have irrefutable proof of guilt, not a bunch of circumstantial evidence I don't have a real problem with it.

Putting money over everything, as ususal. Take a moment to think what if you have a loved one killed by me, what sort of punisment would I deserve in your opinion?

Not sure if it is a deterrent. Probably not. However, because there is a chance of an innocent person being put to death is the reason I oppose it. Otherwise, I would be for it.

No

When the person sentenced to death is guilty beyond all doubt...Nicholas Cruz, for instance....the morality of the issue is of no importance to me. We shouldn't risk the chance of him escaping and killing more people.

Until the turn of the 20th century the death sentence was cheap - you got convicted, sentenced to death and within 10 days - you were dead.
Problem was if you were poor you had a much greater chance of being convicted than if you were wealthy ( surprise!!)
Now, after a deat sentence - In most states ( and I am a Canadaina and we have no death sentences) the Supreme court you must remain incarcerated for a minimum of 6 years so that appeals isssues can be addressed. Then they have up to 18 years to go though all the appeals. If they win - over.
If they lose, their is still due process of 6 levels of requesting lieniency which can take another 4 years - soo in the US there is very little financial gain.

I am pro-death sentence and pro - under 10 days in the case where someone pleads guilty to a crime OR there is irrefutable proof of the actions ( like those idiots who videotaoe their crimes)

Does it stop crime - no nothing stips crime - but it stops THOSE people from ever doing it again.

Hey, how many people who have commited such crimes have repeated it after execution?
When there is no doubt and the crime is extreme, say beheading a bunch of young kids, I cannot see any argument against the death penality.

I believe in euthinasiour excuse my spelling. if your guilty of being a scum bag just kill you right there and then by the most humane way possible. if you want to die because your life is full of pain etc you should be aloud the same release. just because your alive doesnt mean you are living. I would of put my dad and sister out of there missery and thats the truth.

I support the death penalty in very extreme cases however I would prefer a rehabilitation program for criminals instead