CAPITAL PUNISHMENT YES OR NO AND WHY

Lets look at Capital Punishment. How do you feel, should we use it or not. I use to be a huge supporter of CP but in recent years I have decided that it is a tactic that should not be used. The main reason for the change, the huge number of convicted persons who are being released because of DNA. I used to believe that the sytem worked but now I am not sure that it does 100% and if I cant be sure that the person is really guilty, how can I condone their execution. I also dont feel that it is a deterrent to crime, so whats the point in doing it. The crime rate has not gone down in texas, the CP capital of the world. So what do you think.

I agree. Capital punishment is a 100% solution. The legal system doesn't get everything 100% right.

As citizens of the United States, every innocent person that gets executed is blood on our hands. Just lock 'em up and give them the rest of their lives to try and prove that they aren't guilty as charged. In the end, they're still getting a death sentence because they die in the same jail that they would have anyway. They just have to wait around forever until it happens and they don't know when.

...saves us from granting truly guilty dirtbags a last meal, too.

In Kansas, like California, the leading cause of death of death row inmates is old age. There are years and years and years of mandatory and optional appeals. It's not as though the gavel falls and the guy is swinging in an hour.

I used to be for it...until DNA started exonerating people. Now I oppose it, because the system does not bat a thousand, or even close to it. I do think there show be an exception for 'display' murderers though. This would include people who brazenly kill in front of others (FT Hood massacre), terrorists, and serial killers who boast about their exploits.

I used to be for it...until DNA started exonerating people. Now I oppose it, because the system does not bat a thousand, or even close to it. I do think there show be an exception for 'display' murderers though. This would include people who brazenly kill in front of others (FT Hood massacre), terrorists, and serial killers who boast about their exploits. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

I agree 100%

nope, that will not work either......

no.

a) It costs more to kill someone than house them for life due to all the legal proceedings involved.

b) It is not a deterrent.

c) Recent technology (DNA) has show that sometimes we get it wrong. I would rather keep a killer alive but imprisoned, rather than kill an innocent person.


Of course, I have never had anyone close to me murdered. I can imagine feeling different if that were the case.

Is there any law preventing the victim's family from sending gifts to the murderer? You know...like some lipstick, some lube, a pretty pink dress...stuff like that. lol

Even with the technology available today that was not available as recently as 10 years ago to examine DNA evidence and exonerate people, I am definitely for the use of capital punishment, precisely because the Constitution allows for the use of capital punishment (Amendment V).

The arguments and points made in this thread have been discussed brought up and discussed in many venues, however, the number of states that have instituted the death penalty have increased in the past 20 years, primarily because of the use of the "cocktail" of drugs being considered more humane than hanging, electrocution and firing squad. If there was enough outcry against the use of capital punishment, then an Amendment to nullify the section of Amendment V allowing for capital punishment or changing the laws of a state to eliminate capital punishment would be the way to get rid of it. But, the general public has not seen fit to remove that punishment in the majority of the country yet.

I believe the reason that the death penalty is not a deterrent is because 1) the execution of the sentence is carried out behind closed doors, out of view of the public at large and 2) the number of appeals available to convicted people extend the process out that, as stated above, leads to old age as being the more likely manner of death for death row inmates. Until the 20th century, executions were carried out in view of the public, usually in a public square, where the gruesomeness of the execution could be on display. Also, limiting the number of appeals available to death row inmates, yet allowing them to prove their innocence through the use of DNA testing would increase both the likelihood of a correct verdict and a more rapid execution of sentence.

Fritz buddy just because you can do something does not mean you should. The number of appeals are necesasary because the system is full of mistakes. If it can be proven beyond all doubt that the person is guiilty then I am all for executing. By the way I believe the cocktail was deemed a no no and they are now using a one chemical aproach,

Fritz buddy just because you can do something does not mean you should. By the way I believe the cocktail was deemed a no no and they are now using a one chemical aproach, Originally Posted by dirty dog

Actually, I do think you should. And most states still use the three-drug cocktail; there are a few that use a stronger one-chemical approach.

I thought the supreme court ruled on that maybe I am mistaken

Even with the technology available today that was not available as recently as 10 years ago to examine DNA evidence and exonerate people, I am definitely for the use of capital punishment, precisely because the Constitution allows for the use of capital punishment (Amendment V).
Originally Posted by fritz3552

The Consitution also use to allow slavery and deny women the right to vote.

I agree with CPI.

While, honestly, when you hear about the heinous acts some of these offenders have done, I feel that there is no punishment that is cruel and unusual enough, everyone has rights to due process. That said, the death penalty is not cost effective. And if even a small percentage of those condemned to death are actually innocent, it's not a good option for all. While we have one of the world's highest prison populations, I think the best thing we can do is isolate these criminals from any convicts that have a chance of getting out of prison. If you can't kill them, at least you might be able to keep them from influencing other prisoners.

Just the humble opinion of an ignorant taxpayer.

I believe in the captial punishment however I believe it is of no effect today. I am not sure when capital punishiment began I do know that the Romans used public execution as deterrent. Back in the wild west days there used to public hanging which was to be used as a deterrent against commiting crimes. Now they take you into a private room with only a few selected individuals and put you to sleep. Watching the agony of someone dieing or die has an very emotional condition with it. If you never see what it is like to die what fear is there in thinking about being put to sleep. And after all isnt the purpose of punishmnet to be fearful to control the actions of what the society deems acceptable?? Just not sure if the current method of the death penality meets the goals it was once met to do?