Are you for or against the death penalty? 3 part question.?

~Are you in favor of the death penalty, yes or no?

YES!

2~If yes, under what circumstances?

Only in cases of Treason, Sedition, Espionage, Military Desertion, Serial Killers, and Child Sexual Abuse and or Murder

3~if yes or no, why?

Because when the guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the crime is heinous - the convicted must be punished accordingly and thus - removed altogether from the gene's pool of humanity.

P.S. By the way that data that you have compiled SUCKS badly:

1. Go to any country where something like theft is punished by cutting off arms and, say, infidelity is punished by stoning to death - and you will see for yourself that those crimes are actually at ZERO there. Minding you, I am not advocating for either method, but it surely proves your stats invalidity and unreliability.

2. The only reason that death penalty trials are more expensive than cases seeking life without parole (combined with the cost of housing and feeding an inmate for life), is the REPUGNANT political correctness and related tactics by American and other free world's neolibnazi. The frivolous suits and exactly the way the death penalty cases are handled (just like our wars for the past 50 years!) are "shining examples" of how harmful neolibnazeiism is for us.

If We The People woke up and decided that in cases of Treason, Sedition, Espionage and Military Desertion the entire process can't NOT take over, say, 6 months, and in cases of confirmed Serial Killing and Child Sexual Abuse/Murder - not over, say, 3 months... If all lawyers, who ever participated in frivolous suits (like those malignant coffee spill, LaCross Athletes, and medical malpractice cases) would face a criminal offense for this - the Justice system would work as it did once in the Old West: immediately and with negligible percent of mistakes. Unfortunately, mistakes are unavoidable regardless of the system, and only idiots would deny it.

Signed: An Independent Conservative

No. human beings are fallible and all human institutions are bound to get it wrong some of the time. No matter how hard we try, we can't eliminate the risk of executing an innocent person.

Life without parole, on the books in most states, 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

1. No

2.

3. I live in Australia, and we use the jury system. basically the decision is up to 12 citizens, who have to agree on an unanimous verdict. i don't support the death penalty because the responsibility for someone's death might be too much for them, especially to whoever votes last. I favour the life sentence. I think it's even worse than the death penalty, and that the jury wouldn't have to feel responsible giving their honest opinion. it's a good thing too, Australia doesn't have the death penalty :-)

1) Yes

2) When there is no doubt to the guilt of the person (for example on camera hacking a person to bits or crimes against humanity such as Pol Pot) and the crime is particularly heinous. "Heinous" is subjective but I'm thinking on the level of serial killers or hitmen, not standard run of the mill murderers. You get extra points if you rape your victims or the victims are children.

3) Society should have the ultimate punishment for those who've earned it.

No I am not.

1) The state has shown itself to be completely inept in the application of the death penalty. It targets minorities far more than Caucasians.

2) Science is constantly proving those on death row are there unjustly

3) It is one of the last holdovers from civilizations days of absolutist monarchies and it should be abolished as they were abolished.

I'm against it.

No cases.

God only knows that most of them should be tried, convicted and immediately taken out and hanged from a lamp post, but I simply do not trust the government to conduct fair trials.

No.

Because innocent people have been and continue to be sentenced to death, and always will be as long as there is a death penalty. It is not worth it to kill innocent people in the process (unless their prosecutors, the judge, and jury are all sentenced to death too, if they are willing to gamble with innocent people's lives).

No, for the same reasons already given by others, the risk of innocent people being executed.