Are you for or against the death penalty in the U.S.

Please explain why you are for or against it.

For. People forfeit their right to life when they take someone else's.

If there are people that are a complete detriment to society, offering nothing and having been proven to be a reliable danger, what is the point of spending money to keep them alive?

For. Some people just deserve it.

I think a modern society should not have the death penalty. Not necessarily because I personally think that some people don't deserve death, imo, but because of secondary reasons like the government should not have this power, and government sanctioned death penalties degrade the sanctity of human life generally. I also don't think that anyone is really beyond redemption, and I think even someone incarcerated for life can be an asset to society.

Additionally the death penalty, if you want to make absolutely sure that someone is guilty, which a modern society really should, costs more than incarcerating people, so besides the negative points, it also is more of a drain financially.

I believe in the death penalty.
What I don't understand is how some inmates who are sentenced to death spend years in Death Row for it to happen?
In my opinion, once you're sentenced to death, you're given a set period to sort out your will & say your farewells & be done with it.

I'm also of a firm believer that if someone gets a jail term of 10 years or more, the prisoner is then allowed to be given the choice to serve their jail term or be able to choose death.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I believe in the death penalty.
What I don't understand is how some inmates who are sentenced to death spend years in Death Row for it to happen?
In my opinion, once you're sentenced to death, you're given a set period to sort out your will & say your farewells & be done with it.

I'm also of a firm believer that if someone gets a jail term of 10 years or more, the prisoner is then allowed to be given the choice to serve their jail term or be able to choose death.

Because of the severity of the death penalty in particular, the justice system, imo very wisely, is set up to give the accused chances to prove their innocence. This can take many years to deal with and is very expensive, but since there are cases where people were found innocent after many, many years, and since there are cases where defenders, juries and judges just bungled up a case, it is pretty important for the integrity of the judicial system that these extensive failsafes are in place.

Against the death penalty.

The govt shouldn't be given that power.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because of the severity of the death penalty in particular, the justice system, imo very wisely, is set up to give the accused chances to prove their innocence. This can take many years to deal with and is very expensive, but since there are cases where people were found innocent after many, many years, and since there are cases where defenders, juries and judges just bungled up a case, it is pretty important for the integrity of the judicial system that these extensive failsafes are in place.

I totally understand that.
But if there is no doubt at all & all evidence points to the guilty, then the death penalty should be executed as soon as possible.
Why waste time, prison space & money keeping the death row prisoner alive for longer than necessary?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I totally understand that.
But if there is no doubt at all & all evidence points to the guilty, then the death penalty should be executed as soon as possible.
Why waste time, prison space & money keeping the death row prisoner alive for longer than necessary?

Yeah, and the way that we discern that there is no doubt at all is a long bureaucratic process with trials and appeals.

If there was just a way to shortcut the system, why not use it all the time? Who decides it's a open and shut case to bypass the usual process?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and the way that we discern that there is no doubt at all is a long bureaucratic process with trials and appeals.

If there was just a way to shortcut the system, why not use it all the time? Who decides it's a open and shut case to bypass the usual process?

Personally I'm against the death penalty. I think the mark of an advanced and compassionate society is how we treat our prisoners regardless of whether they deserve it or not. I'm not saying they need to live in a five star resort but the way we treat prisoners and the types of punishments we hand out are a direct reflection of us as a culture.

I also think the fact that there is any chance at all that we could execute an innocent man is too high. I would rather hand out life sentences where wrong verdicts can be overturned at a later time.

You add in the fact that the death penalty can be costly and that it really has never been a proven deterrent to murder I think for me it becomes a no brainer to get rid of the death penalty.

Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die, but that's part of lie.

All the things that kill us make room for all the un born babies.

We kill those too, but the ones that make it need air, water, and food.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and the way that we discern that there is no doubt at all is a long bureaucratic process with trials and appeals.

If there was just a way to shortcut the system, why not use it all the time? Who decides it's a open and shut case to bypass the usual process?

I'm talking about the obvious.
Heinous crime committed.
Motives established.
Witnesses.
Irrefutable evidence.
Guilty admission.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die, but that's part of lie.

All the things that kill us make room for all the un born babies.

We kill those too, but the ones that make it need air, water, and food.

Honestly the number of people we would have to kill with the Death Penalty for that to be a viable argument and for it make any difference in population control would be silly.

So to me this is a none point or counter point to the death penalty.

It should be used for people you commit murders intentionally.

If you killed someone for self-defense, you are innocent. The murderer who tried to kill you is as good as dead.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you're saying we need the death penalty so we can thin the heard?

Honestly the number of people we would have to kill with the Death Penalty for that to be a viable argument and for it make any difference in population control would be silly.

So to me this is a none point or counter point to the death penalty.

You are way to dense. You take everything so serious.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die, but that's part of lie.

All the things that kill us make room for all the un born babies.

We kill those too, but the ones that make it need air, water, and food.

Hitler !

I hear the death penalty can be more expensive on the tax payer than having the inmate do life imprisonment.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are way to dense. You take everything so serious.

It is hard to tell with you sometimes.

I'm against the death penalty by the way. Not because of the cost to tax payers ( think an inmate can get up to 17 appeals). I'm also not against it because of the power we give the Federal government. I'm against it because its not a perfect system. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty then its not a perfect system. And I hold life , mines and others, too valuable for it to be put through a system that has condemned innocent people before.

Did you really think I thought we could kill enough people from the death penalty to affect the population? cmon..