Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 10 months ago

In your opinion, should the death penalty be abolished, kept the same, or expanded to more crimes?

Update:

I think it should be expanded, so I disagree with Lois Griffin, but he has a good argument so I’ll give him best answer.

19 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 months ago
    Best Answer

    It should be abolished.

    There are numerous documented cases (some even in recent years like Troy Davis of Georgia) who have been put to death with a mountain of doubt about their guilt. 3 jurors who convicted him later said they regret doing so. 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted what they said.

    It's also not cost-efficient,

    it's not even proven to deter crime..

    and the ones who end up getting it are the those who can't afford a better lawyer..

    and there have been numerous cases where the death penalty procedure was botched.

    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      9 months agoReport

      Nobody who was executed has ever committed another crime. Good enough for me. If we could just try to make sure more violent criminals are IMMEDIATELY killed by the victim or a witness, during the crime, things would run a lot smoother.

  • 10 months ago

    Expanded to include rape and and any crime where a life was in danger ,[drug dealing ,kidnaping,terrorism etc.]

    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      9 months agoReport

      Any crime for which the victim or bystanders COULD have legally used lethal force to stop the crime. The criminal chose to risk his life at that moment it should be immediately forfeited, no questions asked.

  • 10 months ago

    EXPAND to include killing phenomenons you know objects claiming to call themselves "trans-whatever), and non-binary and all other fake gender identities there are only 2 male and female not other things

  • 10 months ago

    You didn't offer the choice of improved. It should be improved. Too much time between conviction, appeal, second appeal and execution. Other than that, I would say it is sentenced too much. Use it when the killer is a broken human being that has no value on the planet. Yes I support the appeals process but 10-25 years on death row is absurd.

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

    In situations of particularly horrible crimes of murder I believe the death penalty would be an absolutely reasonable and just consequence but I am totally against it. The preponderance of people on trial for murder have mental disorders, emotional disorders, extremely low IQs, and few have the resources to support a reasonable legal defense. People under those circumstances are far more likely to be convicted whether they did the crime or not. Some time after DNA testing became available a study in one state identified 1 in 5 people convicted and on death row did not commit the crime. Taking someone’s life as punishment is an absolute measure yet a court is not capable of determining guilt with absolute certainty. With modern DNA and forensics it is not uncommon to find people who have been in jail for many years for a crime for which DNA proves they are actually innocent. They can be released from jail but people put to death cannot be brought back to life. It is totally unacceptable to execute even one innocent person, ever. I totally believe some people deserve to be put to death for their crimes but knowing that some innocent people will be put to death by accident is a deal breaker. A society that accepts the unavoidable fact that some innocent people will be executed in an effort to punish the guilty is barbaric and blood thirsty.

  • 10 months ago

    Has no problem with the death sentences under certain conditions.

    Say a serial killer or a mass shooter if we have an admission of guilt or irrefutable evidence.

    I would even offer it as an option to some of these people sentenced to 50 years or more in prison with no possibility of parole.

  • 10 months ago

    Abolished. It accomplishes nothing but showing that the state is no better than the murderer.

    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      9 months agoReport

      Criminal intent to commit a violent crime against an "innocent" victim is not the same as using police power to execute a convicted criminal who chose to forfeit his life when he did the crime, but was lucky enough to not be killed by the victim in self-defense.

  • Anonymous
    10 months ago

    I think anyone who gets caught entering the US illegally should be given the death penalty. It would be less expensive and more effective than a wall.

    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      9 months agoReport

      Okay, let's just make a list of crimes and pay people to shoot anyone caught doing them. Oh, wait, we already have that.

  • 10 months ago

    i think it should be uniformly applied. and i suggest returning to hanging

  • 10 months ago

    It should be handed out more often and carried out more often.

    The punishment isn’t the same across states. 1st degree murder might get the death penalty in Texas but it might be life in California. Even in the same state, one person might get the death penalty but another one may get life. There’s no guidelines.

    • Bill G
      Lv 6
      10 months agoReport

      There is no such thing as death penalty for 1st degree murder in Texas.
      There is no such thing as 2nd degree murder in Texas.
      Murder is a 1st degree felony, punished by 5-99 years or ife.
      Capital Murder is murder under certain circumstances.
      Capital murder is death or life without parole

  • Anonymous
    10 months ago

    Expanded

    In my opinion we should just have anarchy but with roving bands of raiders who will mindlessly kill anyone they see as unworthy.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.