Do you believe in the Death Penalty?

Who are we to judge who dies and who lives? It may sound like the right thing to do at times, especially when that person just killed someone else or millions of people...but still, if they are meant to die, wont God deal with that?

Update:

And what about those who were wrongly put to death?

43 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You are bringing emotion into the question of the Death Penalty, not logic.

    Our justice system seeks to create a logical process to an emotionally charged event, such as a homicide.

    This isn't about ideology, god, beliefs or anything of that sort. The death penalty in the United States is not an act of 'judgment' or a 'lesson to teach criminals' on behalf of a higher power. We are not Iran.

    The death penalty is simply a way in which we insure the individual in question cannot walk among civilized humans, and can never harm another innocent person again. We also do it to insure the family has some sort of closure. We don't use the death penalty to teach a lesson to someone or seek revenge. Thus, your argument fails. The death penalty is something we do out of logic and not on a belief in a higher power. We have separation of Church and State remember?

    But yes, the death penalty is inefficient, as is much of our justice system. The process takes too long, it is inconsistently applied and the appeals process is too lenient. On the question of those wrongly put to death, it happens in extremely rare cases, and even less today due to more advanced forensic technology.

  • 1 decade ago

    LOL obviously I believe it exists, but...

    We Brits got rid of it in 1965 because it just causes too many problems. What if you execute the innocent? Google Cameron Willingham for a recent case of doubt.

    What I can never get my head around is that the USA is the most religious country in the "western civilised world", and also the only one that still has the death penalty. Don't you guys believe in forgiveness? "An eye for an eye" is so Old Testament. And if you believe in Christianity, surely you believe murderers will receive a higher judgement?

    Even more amazing to me is that the US holds to it when it is proved to be more expensive than life imprisonment without parole, because of all the endless appeals and how much that costs in lawyers. When we had the death penalty, there were only 2 levels of appeal or the possibility of a reprieve from the Home Secretary, and the hanging took place 3 weeks after the verdict.

    But it solves nothing. Cannot people be changed? Isnt' that what being Christian is about? How about this http://www.erwinjames.co.uk/ - an articulate man let down by a bad childhood who would undoubtedly be dead if he had lived in a death penalty state. Fortunately he wasn't.

  • 1 decade ago

    sure do. it is a deterrent for most yet some take actions in their own hands (they kill others--good or bad ppl) so if they kill by the sword they die by the sword.

    Have you seen the guys in prisons? Most are there for life and will not change their behaviors since there is no real need to change..just think, California is about to release over 40 thousand criminals into society and they are not rehabilitated.

    Those who were wrongly put to death is just a mistake that was made by humans--investigators messed up. There is not much that can really be done for them just hope they believed in God.

    God allows us (society) to place laws to govern ourselves as a whole and the death penalty is part of the law of the land so "off with their heads" fro misbehaving. :)

    Source(s): seeker of justice
  • 1 decade ago

    For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty but not because of sympathy for criminals. It isn’t effective in reducing overall crime, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

    The worst thing about it. Errors:

    The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission determined that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.

    Keeping killers off the streets for good:

    Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:

    -an innocent person serving life can be released from prison

    -life without parole costs less than the death penalty

    Costs, a surprise to many people:

    Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, with the largest costs at the pre-trial and trial stages. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. The tremendous expenses in a death penalty case apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

    Crime reduction (deterrence):

    The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people who lack a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.

    Who gets it:

    Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??

    Victims:

    People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

    It comes down to whether we should keep a system for the sake of retribution or revenge even though it isn’t effective in reducing violent crime, costs much more than alternatives and, worst of all, can lead to the nightmare of executing someone for a crime he didn’t commit.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Not at all!

    Firstly, since 1973, 138 innocent people have been killed because of the death penalty.

    That should be enough to be against it.

    Secondly, you have to remember that the criminals have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and maybe even little children. Why would you make innocent people suffer too?

    Thirdly, we're all human and we make mistakes. I believe in mercy, and I believe in letting people know what's right. :)

    Fourthly, life is precious and NO human being has the right to take the life of another human being AT ALL. You can't blame a murderer and murder them. That's just hypocrisy.

  • 1 decade ago

    The death penalty is against 18th century enlightenment principles and thinkers on liberty like the writers of The French Constitution . also ideas by Willian von humbolt about liberty or dostoevsky in crime and punishment have ideas. Now as to God a computer program sending the commandment thou shalt not kill to death chambers in america supply thoughts.

    Same can be done for wars sending electronic computer program to take over missiles saying thou shalt not kill electronics block devices.

    Source(s): thou shalt not kill computer program idea plus french constitution, william von humboldt, torquivelle, rosseau, aldous huxley 20th century, george orwell 20thdentiry, 18th century elightenment history.
  • 1 decade ago

    I am strongly opinionated; however this is an issue where I sit on the fence.

    On one side: I am uncomfortable with executing anyone.

    On the other: I shed no tears for monsters when they are executed.

    I have no specific opposition to the death penalty, but I'm not sure you could call me "pro" death penalty.

  • 1 decade ago

    At one time of my life i believed in the death penalty. But i know believe that "Killing people to show other people that killing people is wrong" it is silly killing to punish. people having to live with what they did is far more punishment. In Iowa the penalty is Life with out the possibility of parole. Which is a death sentence in its self. It is also cheaper and more importantly it is correctable. Although, securing the actual criminal is getting better there are still flaws in the system. Life without parole is correctable. -... ....

  • 1 decade ago

    I believe that capital punishment is suitable under narrow circumstances. I believe that as a deterrent, it's useless, and as a punishment, it's wrong. I do approve of executing the condemned to ensure that they don't do what they were convicted of a second time.

    I think the only crime that should be punishable by death, besides aggravated murder, is a second conviction of rape.

    Source(s): I'm a devout christian, and I don't believe that a human being should be allowed to punish another human being by taking their life.
  • molly
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The reason they are on death row is because they decided who would live or die,

    I think that they should be given a choice of "For the term of their natural life" or death which is choice they did not give their victims.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.