Ask Your Question today
Personally, I’m sort of against it. I think maybe just give the person who murdered maybe like “Life in Prison without Parole” sentence and at least they can still live their life in jail at least. What’s your position on it?
The problem with the death penalty is innocent people die too. Hundreds of people that were executed have been proven innocent later. One innocent person being executed is too many. It doesn't seem like a good risk/reward ratio.
It's barbaric and it doesn't do anything to deter people from committing those crimes. It's also based on revenge rather than on protecting society, which is just petty and simpleminded.
Sometimes, murdering someone who is a serial killer, or who has raped countless women and/or children for example, decreases the overall number of people suffering.
It's obviously not a 100% accurate system, and yes it's barbaric but it solves the problem of having tax money spent on housing them in a maximum security prison.
I don't agree it should be used in all cases, and I absolutely believe every defendant should be granted a fair trial in every case regardless of the severity of the offence and of course trivial things like skin colour.
It should be used as a last resort, almost a deterrent, when all other sentences have been deemed too lenient for the crime committed, but I believe it should be legal.
As counterintuitive as it may sound, the death penalty costs more taxpayer money than a life sentence. The trial is more expensive, the appeals process is longer and more expensive, and death row inmates cost more to house than inmates sentenced to life without parole.
The trial is money out of the criminal's pocket (and the prosecutor), the appeals process is also out of the criminal's pocket (and the prosecutor), and the last statement makes no sense at all. Perhaps it just serves as an example of how awful our government is in some ways.
"Death row inmates cost more to house than inmates sentenced to life without parole"
Is that based on the entire length of their stay in prison? Or just per year?
It’s more expensive per year, I don’t know if that adds up to costing more for the entire length of their stay since the average prisoner is on death row for 15-20 years before their execution but I bet it does. In California, for example, they were spending $85k per year on death row inmates compared to $45k per year on inmates sentenced to life in prison. And inmates were on death row for an average of 20 years before being executed...I can’t find a number on how long those sentenced to life without parole lived in jail, but it would have to be more than 37 years just to break even. Considering an inmate’s life expectancy drops two years for every year they spend in jail, I really doubt it’s that high. And that’s after the trial and appeals process, which is three times more expensive for death penalty cases. And only about 25% of those sentenced to death ended up actually being executed, the rest were either overturned/commuted or the prisoner died of natural causes first. So all that extra money was unnecessarily spent about 75% of the time. We’re talking billions of dollars that could be saved if every death penalty case was a life without parole case instead.
I'm for it if the person is 100% guilty like Ted bundy or Richard Ramirez but if the case is questionable and there are a lot of them I'd say that person shouldn't be on the chopping bloc.
I don't see the point in keeping certain people alive.
I believe that the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of criminals. Some crimes are so obvious and deserving of the sentence that the trial is just a formality. Charlie Manson and his crew comes to mind. If you get convicted and sentenced to death, it should be done and over within a week of the sentence, to review the case for any mistakes. Then pull the plug and be done with it. None of this 35 years of appeals bullshit and dying of old age in prison.
Let them suffer in jail for life instead. Death is the easy way out plus taking a persons life is never the solution.
Ellnell.
So, youre fine spending on average
$40,000 per inmate.
per year,
to keep them locked up?
But, let me guess.
Youre opposed to $40,000 for free healthcare, or college tuition.
Isnt that kinda fucked up.
You dont want to spend tax dollars, until a person has really messed up.
Then you spend freely to just keep them alive till they die.
Am I missing something?
You are. You’re missing the cost of the death penalty. Add up the cost of the trial, the appeals process, death row housing and you spend more than $2 million more on a death penalty case than you would on somebody sentenced to life without parole.
Candylady.
were actually on the simular page.
My arguement is this:
Spend money on education.
Spend money on healthcare.
Spend money on rehabilitation.
But if a person wants to be fuel for the oven.
Then let them.
Personaly Id sentence the lawyer with the client.
I see no purpose served for anyone by long periods behind bars.
Legalize suicide, and death row would become a memory.
Meanwhile,the organ donor waiting list would shrink.
College shouldn't be free. Then everyone will major in gender pronouns or some other goofy shit. If you're not smart enough to get one of 4739 million scholarships you should just not go to college. Most of the retards that go to college make only 1,000 a week anyway. You could literally make more than that sniffing farts on pornhub
I think there should be a one year limit for the death penalty. Also one appeal and that's it. Either prove the person is guilty and then execute or have them exonerated. This 30 years on death row is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm definitely for the death penalty. You kill or other serious sick stuff then you need to die. Life for a life.
I'm against it. I think it's a bit embarassing if we can't think of a better system of punishment than to just kill the person we think did the crime. I'd like to think that modern civilized society can do better than that.
Id empty 90% of the prison system.
3 strikes, youre out.
Heres how:
Any crime, 1st offence.
Youre given a maximum of 5 years, or the death penalty.
You are provided a fair trial.
Not the B.S. we see today.
If convicted,
(But not sentenced to death for murder.)
you go to prison.
You work, You get whatever education your abilities can handle, you get real world job training.
5 years is the max.
You might get 6 months for stealing a car.
You serve your time.
You are released, no parole, no probation, and you are helped along to find a decent job.
Employers are given tax insentives to hire the ex con.
There is help if you need it, but no violation of parole to worry about.
Live your life.
IF, you commit another crime.
Are again found guilty in a fair trial.
Then again, you are locked up.
You work, and are schooled and trained as well as anyone.
Then, youre released.
BUT. If you are convicted in a fair trial, a third time.
You go to death row.
And YES it would be a public execution.
NO young person watching you would think your gang bangin is a good idea.
The system as it stands is corrupt, racist, classist, and a sham.
Yet, we pay for it.
Well I had always been against it until this year. Once I asked my friends what their stand was and I was surprised to find out most of them were in favor, and so I started looking up arguments for and against it, and I think I don't have a formed opinion on the issue right now. On one hand you have that some crimes, like murder and rape, are unforgivable and those people deserve the capital punishment. I support that, but on the other hand, if an innocent person is convicted, the government would become a murderer, so what do we do then, kill the government? Pay the family a ton of money? You just can't make up for the death of an innocent. I think it's safer to just use life sentence without parole for those cases, but with that comes more government spending and the risk of them escaping and commiting more crimes... but I think that with good survaillance, good police and good prisons it can work. I think criminals should be rehabilitated if they just stole or mugged or something along those lines, but murderers and rapists must pay for the damage they've done. Sadly, we are not in a position to kill them.
I say we get the death row inmate. Tie them to a chair then put a 44 in thier skull. Easy, if you want to knock them out first sure. Quick, cheap, not really clean but you can always hold a closed casket funeral.
Letting someone kill without the risk of the goverment killing them as a punishment devalues the lives of everyone. If the goverment holds the right to kill foreign entities then so it also hold some power to do the same to it's own people (of course we got the legal system)
We got to make sure it is 100% the guy. Also it also has to be a horrendous offender which I think pedophiles should be added to said list (dont get why they aren't on there already).
So you think these people decided to be murdered why? Your casual attitude towards murder is honestly a bit concerning. You act like murder is as small as stealing a candy bar. I mean to you it's clearly not a big deal but fact is someone's dead and you can not bring that back.
Conceptually I am fine with it but in practice, it never works in ways I can support. Too many innocent people have been out to death (one is too many), it often costs society more tax dollars than life imprisonment costs, and it’s used disproportionately against minorities.
Some people deserve ti die but our system is too faulty to be allowed to execute people, too many cock-ups killed too many inocent captives.
Let the victims family have 10 min alone with the asshole with a baseball bat
For truly heinous crimes then I'm for it. The cost of housing a high-security inmate is around 40k a year.
If we take the case of a serial murderer then not only does the country get all the horrific fallout that comes with multiple murders, e.g. families ripped apart, people in the community dead, trust shattered, etc, etc; but then, on top of all that, it often has to pay over a cumulative million dollars to house the serial murderer, once against paid for by the same hardworking people who have just suffered the first set of injustices.
I'm pro death penalty but only in murder cases of course. Also because the citizens are the ones who pay for the prisons and prison is not that bad. They are treated quite well and in fact are better off than many people.
I mean some people really just need to fucking die, but I mean fuck the police and the entire legal system too so I can't say I support anything that they do. Not really sure.
Personally I think the punishment should fit the crime so if someone is convicted of murder they should be sentenced to death. The more brutal the murder then the worse the death penalty should be so if the victim suffers an agonising death so should the murderer. If a man rapes a woman he should have everything down there chopped off. If the rape was particularly brutal or involved children his equipment should be removed slowly with a rusty saw and no anaesthetic. If someone steals they should have their own assets taken away and awarded to the victim. I could go on but I’m sure you’re getting the picture
So... an eye for an eye XYXY? The law of retaliation? What if someone is falsely accused? A person can be let out of jail, but they can't be brought back from the dead... or get their eye back.
XYXY.
OK so long as its applied to the cops too.
Id do pay per view to see the
' I cant breathe ' cop get choked out.
The pos that shot trevon.
shot.
Countless others.
When a fired and transfered bad cop.
kills a 7 year old with a toy gun.
But he walks, free.
yea, something IS wrong.
Death penalty is my favorite penalty.
Right next to forced labor. Then we atleast get to benefit from their work.
This depends on the circumstances in which the death penalty is enacted.
Clunk.
why does it matter???
They work to make it clean, painless, sanitary.
They cancel death penalties if they dont have the right drug cocktail.
Why?
Death is death.
we all will face it.
whether fast, slow, painfull, or quick.
The end result is the same.
Whats wrong with a quillotine, hanging, firing squad.?
Its done, so quick.
Who is served or helped by some
Expensive drug cocktail?
Isnt that really just to make it more palletable to the same folks that want to see the person die.
kinda twisted.
It's GUILLOTINE not quillotine.
You're twisted. They say girls are supposed to be emotional and more understanding. You just sound like a psychopath.
Dio.
I dont spell check when im fucked up.
and. Thats the only times I come here.
psychopath?
I was daiagnosed long before you came along.
So, smarty pants.
prove me wrong.
$20,000 of tax payers money.
or
$x
for a reusable head chopper offer.
The result is,
IDETICAL!
Whats it matter how it happens?
I didn't even notice that spelling error when reading it. How is death by guillotine worse than overly-expensive toxins? This is the problem. People are overly-sensitive to death. The guillotine is a supposedly painless way to die, and so are the "death drugs." so why not use the cheaper option? You think the guillotine is twisted, but you think that torture and limb cutting are fine? That's completely nonsensical.
This has nothing to do with guillotine. This is not what I said. I think SHE is twisted for her view of death.
Killing people is useless and non dissuasive. Crippling is much more effective and dissuasive.
Trust me, if a rapist knows that his next attempt will get him have his dick cut off, rape would be greatly reduced.
While I don't truly understand the point your trying to make, I'll try to explain my stand point. I personallt believe that the death penalty is moral enough to exist. I agree with you about guillotines and hangings. People nowadays are overly sensitive to death. Back in the day, public hangings existed, and people were shoved beneath the guillotines as the crowds gathered to watch. "Executioner" was a job title to be proud of. Now, it's something to be ashamed of for some reason.
My problem with the death penalty is when it's used as a catch-all solution. If someone robs a store, is it worth a hanging? No, it's not. I'm also against prisons as the go-to solution. Prisons are a waste of tax-payers' money. The death penalty should only be used for extreme instances or repeat offenders, prisons should never be used, and fines should cover the rest.
Clunk, how do you fine a person thats broke?
At the same time your fine means nothing to a person of wealth.
Fine d trump or limbaw
$1,000,000 For shooting someone at random.
Its nothing to them.
That said, an honestly poor person doesnt have a dollar to his name.
Try thinking through your replies.
He trying to say murder ain't no big deal and they deserve a slap on the wrist. Don't you get that from his attitude?
Death penalty has its pros and cons, as jail time has.
I'd say a torture chamber would be a great alternative. Or limb cutting.