Poll: How do you feel about death penalty?

[Rattja]

So it's a simple enough question, which I am sure have been asked before, but I have a twist to it which I will get to later.

First I simply want to know how people feel about it, and since I want a "clean" answer, the poll is reduced to yes or no.

Feel free to elaborate on the subject, explaining why and how severe the crime has to be.


*edit*
As I expected, the majority says no, which seems to correspond with how many who preforms it in the world today.

So I feel I've gotten enough answers by now for part two.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.842909-Poll-How-do-you-feel-about-assisted-suicide

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd oppose it in my own country.

OTOH, when people from my country get caught smuggling heroin in Indonesia (which also is a serious crime in my own country), which makes it very known that the death penalty exists for people smuggling heroin...you really won't find me demanding their release.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I don't like it at all. I think it's an archaic sentence that is primitive and barbaric. As such, I really want to see it abolished in civilised countries (well, everywhere to be honest, but many countries are just impossible anytime soon). I think it helps to fuel beliefs of vengeance and justice, over reason, logic and understanding which is another, possibly more concrete reason. There's also the possibility of an innocent person being sentenced due to some kind of colossal error.

Not to mention, if we allows governments to legally murder its people, where does the line get drawn?

 

[JoJo]

I oppose the death penalty on three grounds:

1) There is always a risk of innocents being executed, unlike a prison sentence an execution cannot be undone and the wrongly executed cannot be compensated. Even DNA evidence is not 100% solid gold reliable and juries have been misled in the past by 'experts' who exaggerated the probability of DNA belonging to the accused.

2) I don't feel comfortable giving the government, with their track record for reliability, the power of life and death over citizens who aren't an immediate threat to anyone.

3) When all the safeguards, appeals, special equipment and death row costs are taken into account, the death penalty is actually more expensive than simply jailing the prisoners for life. When cuts are being made to healthcare, education, pensions etc, why waste money on this?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

'Killing is wrong. We're going to prove that by killing them.'

Seems legit.

Capital punishment is the ultimate hypocrisy in any civilised society. People have been killed and later found to be innocent. It's barbaric, it isn't justice, it's just punishing pain with more pain.

The 'eye for an eye' mentality is ludicrous.

 

[Jamieson 90]

I'm against it.

1. It costs lots and lots of money, apparently even more than a life sentence.

2. It's not an effective deterrent and in some cases can exacerbates situations.

3. Innocent people can be mistakenly killed.

4. I don't think it should have any place in a civilized society.

 

[Tom_green_day]

If there was irrefutable proof and the victim couldn't be being framed. Like if they shot someone in the middle of a busy mall, or they carried out a terrorist attack making sure everyone knew it was them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If there was irrefutable proof and the victim couldn't be being framed. Like if they shot someone in the middle of a busy mall, or they carried out a terrorist attack making sure everyone knew it was them.

Problem is, in that case do we hand out lesser punishments for people who might have committed crimes?

Either they are judged guilty, or they aren't, if they are guilty, they are punished.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

if someone is broken, and by broken i mean can not be let out of prison as they will kill and maim again and again, destroying families, I really don't see any alternative otheth than keeping them locked in a cell til the day they die. which must be a massive drain on resources and torture for them.

For those who can be rehabilitated, its a hell no to the Death Pen

Just my opinion, I'm sure a lot will disagree

 

[Zhukov]

I'd be all for it for repeat offenders of serious crimes. If they haven't learnt their lesson, then yeah, just kill them and be done with it.

But.

My problem with it is that it's irreversible. If someone is wrongly found guilty, which happens, then later exonerated, which also happens, then there's no bringing them back. At least if they've been imprisoned in that situation, you can let them out.

So with that in mind I can't really support it, regardless of how much sense it makes otherwise.

...

'Killing is wrong. We're going to prove that by killing them.'

Seems legit.

Capital punishment is the ultimate hypocrisy in any civilised society.

Wut?

If someone is trying to kill you, is it hypocrisy to kill them?

If someone is killing members of a society, is it hypocrisy for that society to sentence them to death in response?

If someone were found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, would it be hypocrisy to imprison them as punishment? "Holding people against their will is wrong. We're going to prove that by holding you against your will. Seems legit."

The death sentence isn't about proving anything. It's just a matter of expedience.

 

[OneCatch]

I disagree with it.

I think, even with the protracted and expensive appeals process, it runs the risk of killing innocent people. You can't bring back the dead, but you can always let out a convict if innocence is proven, even if they've wrongly lost years of their life.

It costs a stupid amount because of the appeals process - and people end up on death row for a lifetime. It's cruel, and because it isn't a 'normal' sentence, you can't let out individuals who genuinely reform in those decades.

The justice system should be about reform anyway - even if someone never gets let out they might, say, start campaigning against gang violence or something. Reform should always be offered and attempted, and the end goal should be re-integration to society, even though there will inevitably be those who don't ever get released because of public safety.

One thing I'd also say, even though it's only semi-relevant. I think that the way in which the US approaches execution is grotesque. There have apparently been numerous cases of near-untested drugs being used to kill people, and in combinations which may or may not work as intended. Surely there are more familiar methods to use (whatever they use for euthanasia perhaps? Hell, even a firing squad would be more certain).

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I'd be all for it for repeat offenders of serious crimes. If they haven't learnt their lesson, then yeah, just kill them and be done with it.

But.

My problem with it is that it's irreversible. If someone is wrongly found guilty, which happens, then later exonerated, which also happens, then there's no bringing them back. At least if they've been imprisoned in that situation, you can let them out.

So with that in mind I can't really support it, regardless of how much sense it makes otherwise.

...

'Killing is wrong. We're going to prove that by killing them.'

Seems legit.

Capital punishment is the ultimate hypocrisy in any civilised society.

Wut?

If someone is trying to kill you, is it hypocrisy to kill them?

If someone is killing members of a society, is it hypocrisy for that society to sentence them to death in response?

If someone were found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, would it be hypocrisy to imprison them as punishment? "Holding people against their will is wrong. We're going to prove that by holding you against your will. Seems legit."

The death sentence isn't about proving anything. It's just a matter of expedience.

...

...

You got me there XD

Hmmm, maybe hypocrisy is the wrong word.

 

[Movitz]

The only argument worth any merit, is that innocent people might get executed in the place of the actual criminal.

I believe that certain crimes are of such depraved nature and telling of a sick soul, that killing them would actually be doing both them and society a favor.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

The only argument worth any merit, is that innocent people might get executed in the place of the actual criminal.

I believe that certain crimes are of such depraved nature and telling of a sick soul, that killing them would actually be doing both them and society a favor.

This. While I am ok with doing life imprisionment for most high level crimes, I still think the death penalty should be kept on the books the books for extreme crimes. Specifically, mass murder, serial murder/rape/etc, acts of terrorism, and acts of treason.

Which is why I like the way we have it here in Kansas. While the death penalty is still on the books, no one has gotten it for over 60 years, and your average murder (ie, you kill one guy) will net you a "Hard 50", 50 years imprisionment, or if you outlive that, life.

 

[DANEgerous]

The problem with it is not the death penalty but the justice system, I am in favor of it on a far more strict scale. The reason for this is both barbaric and simple. If you walk into my house and kill mt family member hell if you kill my pet and I see you do this and afterwards you surrender drop your gun and tell me you reason for killing whomever it was. I am going to pick the gun up and shoot you in the goddamn face until I am out of bullets. This to me is clearly far worse than capital punishment as I am judge jury and executioner but I am fine with it. The problem is we likely kill innocent people and not even one innocent life is worth it.

 

[Eamar]

The only argument worth any merit, is that innocent people might get executed in the place of the actual criminal.

I believe that certain crimes are of such depraved nature and telling of a sick soul, that killing them would actually be doing both them and society a favor.

Pretty much this. I can't support it if there's any chance an innocent person might be killed, but that's my only reason for opposing it, not some moral position that the taking of life is always wrong.

 

[Muspelheim]

Only in cases of extreme cruelty on the part of the perpetrator, and that the evidence is as clear as possible. I'm not particularly bothered, though. Either locking them in for life or having them shot on the courtyard will do. My country does not have the death penalty, and while I'm not terribly against the idea, I can take it or leave it, truth be told.

Of course, what matters is that the evidence is clear and that the execution is done with a modicum of haste, it's just defeating the point if the prisoners are made waiting for twenty years. It shouldn't take more than a month to be shot at dawn.

I'm fairly sure that only one or two cases worthy of the death penalty would be handled every 20 year, however. If at all.