Hellobee Boards

If you can prove with DNA that someone did something, yes.

I think life in prison without hope of parole is a far worse punishment. Plus, with appeals and everything, death penalty cases actually end up costing the states more than lifetime incarceration.

For the most part, no, I don't.

I used to, until about two years ago. I no longer support it.

Nope. As Mr. Bee points out, the administration of it has been terrible, and a disproportionate number of minorities are given the death penalty. California had a ballot initiative to ban the death penalty that will be voted on on Tuesday.

Also, DNA is not infallible - there are a lot of situations where the DNA is wrong due to contamination and other scientific principles that I don't fully understand, so I wouldn't be comfortable even using DNA.

I agree with zippylef. Also, I feel that if the government kills someone as punishment its no better than the person that did the original crime. We're way more civilized than 'an eye for an eye'. Plus, I think rotting in jail (with no chance of parole) is way worse than putting someone out of their misery.

For something like the Colorado shootings this summer, I would support it. They guy is obviously guilty and killed multiple people.

@Mrs.Someone: I agree, rotting in jail is worse than death, but I think as a system, we can't afford to keep paying for food, shelter, health care for criminals like that.

@zippylef: I also don't think if you obviously did something that the state should be required to pay for YEARS of legal fees for cases.

I don't...AND I live in Texas!

I don't.

I feel like using death as a punishment is just wrong. I agree with @Mrs.Someone, It doesn't seem any better than the person who committed the crime in the first place.

I work in child care and I'm always trying to tell the kids that just because someone does something to you, doesn't mean you should do it back (hitting, biting, that sort of thing). An Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind.

In theory I don't have an issue with the death penalty; but in practice in the US it's a total mess, and I don't support our current system.

@mrbee: But that's another thing that annoys me! Lawyers use it to broker deals. For example, rat out your co-conspirator and you will get life in prison instead of the death penalty. But you are both equally guilty, so why does one person deserve to die but not the other?

@meredithNYC: me too. No way I could support the death penalty.

@mrbee: Maybe. I guess it would depend on how much other evidence they had and whether they could convince a jury without the testimony.

I've also read where people will make a deal for life in prison instead of the death penalty if they plead guilty. Is that just to save everyone from appeals?

Nope.

No. Either you make a moral argument for it -- an eye for an eye -- or you make the argument that it acts as a deterrent for future crime. Either way it's a flawed argument. Morally, I don't believe we have the right to take away somebody's life in return for an innocent. And as a deterrent, it clearly doesn't work.

One of the most interesting things I read was about when they abolished the death penalty in Illinois. It was a long and thoroughly-researched process and then-Gov. Ryan (who commuted everybody's sentence before leaving office) had interviewed victims' families. All if not most of them said they didn't feel any sense of closure or justice after the death sentence and didn't feel as if they should be "playing God." I thought that was really telling.

The erroneous prosecutions also make me extremely uncomfortable.

Although I understand the argument that the state shouldn't be paying for the housing, feeding, caring, guarding, and appeals of convicted killers, I just don't think that the government should have authority over life and death. So many innocent people have been put to death throughout the years as well.

And along the same lines - I also don't think the government should have power over life and death for non-prisoners, such as creating laws regarding assisted suicide.
In general, I think the government should be much less involved in the way people choose to live their own lives (as long as it isn't hurting those around them).

No, I do not. Primarily it goes against my catholic religious beliefs of respecting life.

But it is also a racist system - minorities are more likely to be killed than whites, especially if their crime was against a white person. It is also expensive, the appeals, which can drag on for decades, cost the state more than just housing someone in prison. It's not a good deterrent - crimes of passion mean people aren't thinking "oh I would kill bob but what with the death penalty and all, guess not," so we should spend our effort on things that actually reduce crime. I believe it is cruel and unusual and goes against our right to life. I do not believe the government should get to decide who lives and who dies. And it is not error proof, in fact, just the opposite.