Do you think that there should be a death sentence for the worse criminals? In my opinion the death penalty would be a bigger cost for the government, but I think that it should take place in the worst causes, because a criminal that killed many people deserves not more than death. The justice should be a lot more strict in some countries for ex. in Norway.
I believe the death penalty should be used in cases where there is no doubt. I also it should be carried out within one year at the most.
I would never support it. Apart from the moral standpoint, there have been so many cases of people being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Consider the cases of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four in the UK, where completely innocent people spent many years in gaol for IRA bombings they had no connection with. All of these people lost fifteen or more years of their lives, but at least got their freedom eventually. People cannot be brought back from the dead.
I am opposed to capital punishment because I am pro-life, and I am not one of those pro-lifers who act as if life ends at birth, referring to a large percentage active pro-lifers who are in favor of war and capital punishment. As I recognize that capital punishment is not contrary to God's law, I try not to judge people on that basis but it is not something that I can support. Another major argument against capital punishment is that our justice system (any justice system) too often gets things wrong, and "oops" isn't quite enough after capital punishment has been imposed.
I have mix feelings regarding the death penalty. Yes, there are those criminals that there is no way to dispute they are gulity and their crimes are pretty heinous. However, do I approve of putting them to death? Not really, especially in the wake of the fact that lately the cocktail being used for this purpose has proven to be anything but humane. Now these days the death penalty isn't implemented the minute a person is sentence they can spend decades on death row before being put to death so any amount of appeals or new evidence to come forth will hopefully do so in that time.
I don't approve of the death penalty. Aside from the fact that the legal system makes mistakes which could lead to the death of innocent people, it's always bothered me that when someone is executed, other people are responsible for carrying out the sentence. That means that they are legally allowed to kill and are even paid to do so. To me that's not right. And I have to wonder how those people can live with themselves.
A lot of you know that my oldest son was murdered in '93. He was in his tenth year of service, and on leave from the Army. He was a Ranger, and had to be away from home for long periods of time, so he had taken an emergency leave to see what was going on in his marriage. Well the long story made short, my son was killed by his wife's boyfriend. It was a brutal and horribly painful death. It was also witnessed by 30 people at a BBQ. The man took a plea bargain within a couple of days, and got 25 years. If it had gone to trial, I would have hope for a life sentence. But I do think there is a place for the death penalty. There are some truly evil people out there, and all they want to do is kill and maim as many as they can, and there is no rehabilitating such people. These people should leave this world.
Absolutely in favor of the death penalty! Rabidly in favor of the death penalty! Of course it should only apply in cases of absolute guilt. I am a pro-lifer, but the lives of potential victims takes precedence over the lives of psychopaths who murder them. The death penalty is a great deterrent! Just ask the families of Ted Bundy's later victims. He and all others like him should have been executed immediately after his guilt was proven. Instead, the appeals process drags on and on, giving them a chance to escape and kill again.
On cases where there is no doubt, hold the trial day after capture, sentence the second day and execute the third day. I'm pro life too, and pro justice. Why warehouse the worst of criminals?
@Ina I. Wonder - I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to your son. I agree that 25 years was an inadequate sentence for your son's killer, but I'm still not convinced that the death penalty is the answer. I would prefer a man like that to be sentenced to life with no chance of parole, and for him to suffer enormous hardship for the rest of his life. To me death just seems like giving him the easy way out.
The problem with life sentences with no parole, is that prisoners DO escape, or they can even find themselves pardoned, if the powers that be decide it's a good idea. As for suffering in prison, I am not convinced that that's the case at all. Oftentimes, prisoners have more luxuries on the inside than they're ever willing to work for on the outside. I think mercy comes from God, but as a structured society, we have to be diligent in administering justice.
@Brittany Houser - I realise that those things do happen so I guess it's safe to say that the legal system isn't doing its job properly. Prisoners certainly shouldn't get luxuries in prison, so maybe it's time that the powers that be realised that. Prison should be a place where criminals suffer for what they've done, and that's what I'd like to see happen. As for pardoning prisoners for some really heinous crimes, I just don't get it. Life should be life and nothing less.
There used to be death penalty in our country. However, when Cory Aquino became president, she removed that provision upon the urgings of the Catholic church. The argument goes that the justice system (in the Philippines) is far from perfect so what happens if the convict is executed and he was later proved to be not guilty? That point was what quieted the proponents of the death penalty. For me, death penalty is okay as long as the guilty is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
As many of you know, my oldest son was murdered in 1993, at the age of 27, by a total stranger to him. It happened in front of 30 guests at a neighborhood BBQ. The murderer was facing capital murder, so he asked for, and recieved a plea bargain of 25 years, and of course the victum's family was allowed no input in the matter. So I have spent 22 years writing to, and going to parole hearings, because there was was no one else to fight for my son, he was no longer an issue. Friday the parole board called me to talk about inmate's last chances at parole. He is scheduled to get out totally clear in three more years. His getting out on those terms concerned me, because he knows where I live, and my son's grown children. The parole board said they would do as I wanted in the matter. So I asked that he be parole with a few stipulations. He can not live in our or any county surrounding us, he can't engage my family at all, he will have to take drug tests monthly, and he will be wearing an ankle bracelet for his parole duration. That will be added the the rules the board decides to place on him. If he is caught drinking alcohol, or anything illegal, he will returned to prison for his last remaining three years. If it involves anything to do with my family, the shortest sentence will be five years. That will depend on what he might try to do. I thought that this at least would give us some protection. But my grandchildren don't like my choice at all. Of course they have all kinds of scenarios of how they would like to deal with the person that killed their father. For me, all the more reason to do as I chose to do.