Do you feel the death penalty is a reasonable, moral, ethical, effective, or legitimate means of punishment?

I'm definitely against it.

Besides, the difference in cost of killing the prisoners "worthy" of the death penalty and of not killing them is negligible in the entirety of the prison system.

Edit: I should add that I'm also against life sentences without analysis of the individual. It is said that there are worse things than death, after all, and someone who is genuinely sorry and able to change should be released.

My objections to the death penalty are mostly pragmatic, not ethical or moral.

The moral position usually stated, "How can a government make murder a crime when they are killing citizens themselves?" or some variation of that can be easily dismissed. We also do not allow people to kidnap and confine others against their will, or extort money from one another, yet those are punishments the courts impose. In short, the penal system must use methods of punishment which it does not allow citizens to practice privately.

My objections to the death penalty are:

It is very expensive and time consuming. It is cheaper to confine a person for life.

It is not an additional deterrent over life imprisonment.

We have a history of convicting the wrong person in capital cases. DNA evidence has recently overturned a number of murder convictions, including a person who had been on death row (but was commuted to life). The rate of wrong convictions actually goes way up when the crime involved is serious enough to warrant the death penalty. There are a number of contributing factors, such as the high emotional level clouding judgement and the pressure on police to get a conviction in the case. A person can be freed from prison when exonerating evidence is found. They can not be brought back to life.

I oppose the death penalty because it is not an effective way to prevent or reduce crime and it risks executing innocent people. Here are answers to questions often asked about the death penalty system in the United States. The sources are listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?

124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?

DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?

No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?

Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process. Extra costs include those due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

What about the very worst crimes?

The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?

Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?

Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?

Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning about the system and we are making up our minds based on facts, not eye for an eye sound bites.

Edit- many people including some who answered your question confuse deterrence (preventing someone else from committed the same crime) with incapacitation (preventing recidivism) Both life without parole and the death penalty incapacitate criminals, life without parole does so at a much lower cost.

You know I used to be for the death penalty. I used to think that if someone killed someone then perfect justice is death on the part of the wrong doer. If fact the bible highlights that foot for a foot, eye for a eye, soul for soul.

Today we have a Justice system and although most of the time it works, mistakes do happen. There is an saying that was said to me one time... "better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent".

If you murdered someone and have money you can buy the best lawyers and they will present your case perfectly. You can actually buy your way off. Look at OJ Simpson. However, for the poor person he has nothing. He cant afford the best lawyers and as a result looks like he's guilty where really he can be innocent.

Sometimes lawyers withhold evidence. Look at the district attorney that withheld evidence in the duke atheletes case recently.

So my point is, although perfect justice is soul for soul, you can't administer that within an imperfect Justice system.

As a result, I am no longer for it.

No. It is against my ethical beliefs, there remains a possibility of error in determining who is guilty for a crime and it has questionable deterrent value.

But my main criticism is that it leaves no room for an individual to reform or to make some amends for their actions.

Here of course I am talking about criminal justice, rather than the execution of deserters from the army, religious or political dissenters or any other similar group who have also historically been (and in some places still are) liable to the death penalty.

To me punishment should show someone the errors of their ways and give them an opportunity to change. For those such as sociopaths who are sick and cannot change I still do not feel death is an acceptable solution.

.

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Excellent question - and I think it's ok to go back and forth - my religion says the death penalty is not ok, but I used to be supportive of it. Since then I have gone the other way - and actually, this may be a weird reason - think about it. You're executed by the state, you're dead. But...if you have to live the whole rest of your life in prison with no chance of EVER getting out - I actually think life in prison is WORSE than the death penalty. Maybe that's the wrong reason to flip my belief, but that's why I did. And you're correct - yo'ure going to see people of the same religion come down on different sides of the issue. This is a good thing, tho - these are issues we really need to think about in our hearts before we make a decision on. :) And I too worry about whether the person "did it" or not. Don't you wish people would just tell the truth on whether they did what they did?! LOL. Would save lots of money on trials...LOL...

Yes the death penalty is reasonable as long it i can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person commited the crime.

I think the death penalty is for more moral and ethical than life in prision. Lets say you release someone back in to society after 50 years there chances to adapt and survive are effectivly zero to me that is more cruel than just killing them.

I feel that it is effective after all as far as I am concerned some people can never be rehabilitated or are to sadist or sick to ever be allowed back in to society and so they are a problem and as Stalin said "If you get rid of the man you get rid of the problem"

1. It is unreasonable...it kills..it kills one for the death of another, how is killing reasonable...? As a punishment, it does not punish, it kills.

2. It is immoral. Killing is immoral. Thou shall not kill. How can a society which purports to protect its citizens from death propose killing as a solution to death.

3. It is unethical. Ethics and Morals are the same thing. Killing anyone is unethical. The focus of law should be justice, not death. Where is the justice for the victims..?

4. It is ineffective. The death penalty does not prevent crime and it certainly does not prevent killing.

5. It is not a legitimate means of punishment because it does not punish..it kills....

Peace from a Buddhist....

I don't believe it is ever right to kill a person for what we have judged them to have done wrong. I just do not believe that anyone on this earth has the right to make that decision other that yourself ie. if they felt so bad about what they had done and were not mentally ill at the time of decision then they should be allowed to kill themselves. Legalizing revenge does not change the fact that is revenge and not justice. Killing someone was never a deterrent and there is evidence to suggest that it makes people more volatile and desperate which is no good for anyone.