Do you support or oppose the death penalty?

I oppose it. For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals like this, but because it doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:

The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 144 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:

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

Costs, a big surprise to many people:

It is well known that the death penalty costs far more than life sentences. Not many people know why this is so. The upfront part of the legal process, as well as appeals, are much more complex in death penalty cases, because the punishment sought is irreversible. We know that innocent people were executed in the past (in the US and elsewhere.) The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages and they apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):

Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty is no more effective in deterring others than life sentences.

Who gets it:

The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender.

Victims:

Like no other punishment, it subjects families of murder victims to a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

The death penalty comes down to retribution or revenge—the only plausible reasons to support it.

Given the number of people on death row that have been exonerated by DNA evidence, it is blatantly obvious that at some point innocent people have been executed. It is a matter of time before it happens again with proof after the fact.

It has never been a deterrent - pickpockets worked the crowds at the hangings of pickpockets in the UK.

No "right to Live" if you kill... is a trickier one. What about someone who accidentally backs over their own kid in a driveway? I'm sure your friend would agree that doesn't deserve the death penalty; while a John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer (or indeed Hitler, while we're at it) probably does... who makes that decision? At what point does the right to life become null and void? One premeditated murder for money? A whole bunch caused by a deep psychological illness one has no control over? There's a million variations. Come up with a rule that is FAIR... and while we're at it, look at the number of African-Americans executed versus the number of White Americans executed - there is a deep and troubling bias in the system out of all proportion to socio-economic factors. In the real world, deciding who "doesn't deserve it" is open to abuse - is abused.

Financially, it's much more expensive to execute than to imprison.

Recidivism is only a problem if prisoners get released - a life with no parole is pretty effective at protecting the public.

Executing anyone - even a guilty person who is actually really guilty, not just found guilty by a flawed judicial system that is mostly right but not always - still cheapens the value of a human life; and thereby diminishes the immensity of the crimes they are being executed for.

No, because history has shown that mistakes have been made and later discovered in time to give the wrongly accused some of their life back. Also, it does not deter, and it costs more to process appeals.

Perhaps it serves a deterrent purpose if someone has already committed capital murder and a second offense means death. But I personally would throw it out. Offenders would be more likely to fight to the death or commit suicide before taking a chance on execution.

I am a firm supporter of the death penalty. I have no sympathy for the Ted Bundy's, the Tim McVeigh's and the other scum that murder innocent people.

The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent, how many buildings do you think McVeigh will bomb now that he is dead.

I personally had the bad fortune to be in Huntsville TX when a death row inmate escaped.

Plus I do not think a common pot dealer should be forced to live with the likes of Roger Dale Stafford.

Executions are no more murder than using lethal force for self defense or a legal act of war.

I neither support or oppose it.. It is a case by case decision. It does cost more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life with no chance of parole.. I think that death is too easy.. let them rot in prison.

I certainly didn't cry when Ted Bundy,Tim McVeigh were executed, but sitting in prison would have been harder for them.. We all knew that they were gulity, but there are some non guilty folks on death row.. Juries are not infallible.

"Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death" Exodus 21::12

I believe that people should be punished for bad behavior. It was their choice to murder, and I also think that it is self defense in another form.

Oppose. In the first place, what makes us any better than a murderer when we decide who lives or dies? Second, it does not deter any crime and never has. Britain used to hang pickpockets. They averaged 300 a year. Third, it is quite possible to keep the away from society without ever killing them, and a long life in prison is far more punishment than a quick easy death. Fourth, it costs $2 million more to try a capital murder case than a simple life imprisonment.

I'm not a bible thumper, and I happen to be a liberal, but I support the death penalty. I don't see the point of taxpayers keeping murderers alive, housing them, feeding them, etc. when they have exhibited no such concern for their fellow human beings.

Support. I am 100% in agreement with Caroline. The only difference is that I am conservative.

Support it.