While innocents are executed at times due to the faulty legal system, overall, those that kill in cold blood should not be "executed" at all. They should be forced to kill themselves (Kervorkian machine type stuff) as to not make the would-be executioner the killer.

I think criminals who have committed horrendous crimes should be made to suffer their wholelives so that they can think about what they did... the death penalty lets them get off too easily

I consider myself very liberal, but I'll be damned if a rapist or pedophile walks away unscathed from a courthouse.

If you've read Delfino and Day's book, Death Penalty USA: 2005-2006, I think you'll agree that even if these criminals weren't executed they should have at the very least been locked away forever!

I too agree with Genghis that the death penalty of today involves a long and arduous road to its end. I know that a lot of people think that it's immoral as well, and while I respect that view, I can't agree. I just feel that there are some people on this earth who have committed crimes so horrible, so heinous and so unimaginable, and that the suffering they inflicted upon their victims and the victims' families is hard to comprehend to the point that the only solution for them is to be gone from this earth. I think that there are some people in this world who are truly evil and should not be able to live among us. At the same time, we shouldn't have to feed and clothe them for decades at a time until their appeals are exhausted. I don't even think an appeal should be an option for these so-called "human beings."

I oppose the modern death penalty. The dragging on for ten years is stupid. Now if you would have a trial, build a scaffold in the courthouse parking lot, and drop the mope through the trap door within two or three months of conviction--now, that is a penalty!

Also you gotta let the kids out of school to watch the execution. To deter, you know. Isn't that one of the reasons for the penalty?

Your never 100% shore the person commited the crime so I don't like it. Imagine you were innocent and you were put to death that would suck so much.

Until it can be applied with equality under the law....no.

  I have a very simple belief, if you killed someone on purpose then you should be killed. It is as simple as that.

No way... Whoever saw Trier's movie "Dancer in the Dark" with Bjork acting the main role, can see what I mean. It's not only about the innocent/guilty issue.. It is also about defining the reason or the reasons that lead a person to crime. The borderline of right or wrong isnt always obvious.So, it's preferable for a guilty man to rot in prison rather than killed in an unspecified manner. States don't give lives, so states have not the right to take lives. That's a matter of one's god to decide.

As long as it is left up the the voters of individual states and not made a national policy I don't have a problem with the death penalty. It does however, solve the problem of repeat or habitual offenders.

I believe that the death penalty serves as a perpouse of a deterant more than any possible punishment that our system could come up with. For those that disagree, take this into consideration, say you kill a hundred murderers and then one soon to be murderer questions his act because he does not want to die. One innocent life was saved, and if we have to kill a hundred more murderers just so that one will decide against murder...the system works. In addition, those that are put on death row deserve to be on death row, sure, there may be a lot of innocent people in jail, but in order to be sentenced to the death penalty, there must be overwhelming evidence to prove that said person commited the crime. And again, there are different digrees of murder as well. This area is not black and white, but a definite grey, and one must use common sence when deciding whom will be placed under the death penalty. (If I had it my way, all child rapist would be given capital punishment) but hey, we don't live in a perfect society, but as long as the death penalty still persuades some not to kill, it sould remain.

Let the states decide.

I dont know, i live in Canada and let me tell you, sometimes i feel like saying "he did the crime! kill him!" but when it comes down to it, is it worth adding to the grave? The natives have a good way of their guilty, one case told of one Aboriginal who did crimes, so they put him on an island alone for two years and after that, he didnt do anything, jail doesnt work, you put them in there and theyll come out worse

I love America, and it loves me, but we are becoming too soft as a nation. Too much crime and violence. Solution, stronger penalties, and this may sound too hehaww but if you kill someone, then you should be killed, unless it's a freak accident. We must take the country back from criminals.

Lets say we have a person on death row for murder, He just went out killed a total stranger who was minding their own business and for no real reason at all (he wasnt provoked, no fight, no exchange of any words etc). So boom the comvicted killer is on death row. His day comes and he is to die by lethal injection. The individual who will actually be issuing the injection, or setting it up so that a machine will issue the injection into the arm of the convicted killer is also killing someone who did absolutely nothing to him personally. How does this differ? IS it justifiable because thats his "job" and what he was ordered to do? I think killing someone is killing someone. I dont like the death penalty. If someone is comvicted of murder, let them stay locked away in a tiny little prison cell. Let them have the agony of waking up every day thinking about what they did for the rest of their lives. This is just my opinion.

With today's modern forensics and DNA testing there is less probability of executing an innocent person.

i do think there are a lot of innocent people on death row, which shows what a cruddy system we have. however, for the death penalty to be carried out correctly then there needs to be some serious investigations into a lot of things such as racial profiling and dna testing. i used to be against the death penalty but after continually seeing horrible murders/crimes committed especially on children then there is no reason why these horrible criminals shouldn't be executed.

i live in texas and we have the most executions than any other state. i beleive there are alot of innocent people in prison. and if you read my favorite quote, this is one reason why. I worked with a man that killed 4 children one was his girlfriend. others were her siblings. he came from a nice family , i knew them for years. boths families lose. but when you take someones life and show no remorse at your court hearing. you have serious issues. this gentleman dad was a drunk and ran around on his mother. he was upset cuz he and his girlfriend broke up. i dont get it take your own life if your that miserable. leave others alone. i know that no one grew up in a leave it to beaver family. some one has to break the chain somewhere. kids know what they see. violence is wrong and not the anwser. money isnt either. money makes life easier. i hate to pay 40k a year to keep a prisoner on death row. God gave us the same brain. you just need to use it and quit making excuses for your bad choices. the worst thing in life you can do is mess up

This issue has streaked the cover of SF papers in recent months, with Stanley "Tookie" Williams and currently with Michael Morales execution being suspended. My stance on the death penalty teeters. It doesn't seem right for me to think that I'm pro taking a life, however guys on death row are seriously bad dudes who've done their share of killing in a horrific way. Is some form of sympathy owed to these guys? Maybe, if you believe in Hell. Certainly not if you can relate to the victims or their families. Back to rating the importance...I think the bottom line is that there are other wars to be fought that rank higher than the lives of convicted murderers - fight cancer, fight AIDS, fight the war in IRAQ, fight starvation...the list goes on and on.

I oppose the death penalty simply because human beings and the systems we set up can not be perfect. If we as mortals are going to take it upon ourselves to deprive another of life, not in self-defense or with any proof that the act makes anybody safer, we ought to be sure that we are capable of knowing for certain that the convicted person deserves to die. The problem is that we can rarely know with absolute certainty the guilt of an individual, and even less can we know whether the individual deserves to die. When the jury considers the case in the penalty phase, evidence that was barred as inflammatory and prejudicial in the guilt phase is allowed in - not just accepting but actually inviting a response based on emotion rather than rationality. This increases the potential for error. We are not machines. And we cannot get into the hearts of other human beings to determine the value of their lives. Therefor, in the absence of any solid evidence that the death penalty deters murderers effectively, the state should not be in the business of vengeance. And given the recent revelations about the inability of the system to ensure that only guilty people die, there is absolutely no rational argument for the DP. Our system is premised on the principle that it is preferable that a hundred guilty go free than even one innocent be punished. Yes, I do think about the victims. Offing the perp doesn't bring them back, and rarely provides lasting comfort to the families of the victims. Besides, many perps have been killed by the state even when the families of the victims have called for mercy, so let's not even pretend this is about the families of the victims. Bottom line, we can't bring somebody back to life if we screw up. Until we can, we ought not be taking absolute action in the absence of absolute knowledge and wisdom.

More tentacles... --sigh-- Wise: Three square meals, cable TV... ...the death penalty. M: Personally, I would reform the prison system, and strip it down. There would be no television or newspaper delivery. The three square meals would be minimized to be even more basic than they already are. And there would be more prisoner separation, paid for by all the funds saved from stripping down the "extras." Wise: Many criminals actually prefer... M: That is true to some degree, but your "many" is overstating the real stats. Again, my ideas of prison reform would make it far less appealing. And my ideas above are simply a few that could fit in this space here, there are more. Wise: Many convicted killers .. ...F&c# THAT! M: No one asked for your sympathy. Not choosing to kill someone is just simply more practical--it's not an exercise of pity. Stop trying to pretzel twist the issue...I know it's hard for Republicans not to, but try! : ) Wise: The killer was the Judge Jury and Executioner over their victim but the Left Wing Loons spend little or no time talking about the victim. M: You need to do a little research into how much funding and legislation us "Left Wing Loons" do in support of victims, and then also do a little research into how much of that legislation is supported (denied!) by the Right Winged Nutbags, because they say us "lefties" care too much about "social programs." Wise: If the system was one hundred percent full proof would the Left Wing Loons be for it? NO. Is that logic, maybe not, but be honest with yourself. M: The system isn't perfect, but I would love to perfect it. The Right Winged Nutbags are the ones who get off (and profit) from broken systems and usually stop legislation from accomplishing anything. I'll leave my details and support on that to another topic board for now. Wise: When the BTK killer gets his hot shot, the family of the victims will feel much better...for the long haul. M: Psychology has proven that despite the fact theory states they will feel better, witnessing the execution acts as a mental icon of the pain originally suffered. Do some research. PREVIOUS: I can see the Right-Winged Nutbags have even extended their tentacles into this topic... Is there no safe harbor from their flawed logic and blind patronage to the GOP? The answer is no. That's a no-brainer. But I digress, on to Captial Punishment! : ) Listed below, I'll bullet point a few of the typical Right-Winged Nutbag thoughts (even the incomplete ones) and give you my take on them. 1. Right-Winged Nutbag: I support capital punishment because you have to remove the harm from society! Mathew: Yes you do. Remove doesn't mean "destroy." You can easily administer a life-term prison sentence with absolutely no parole. This accomplishes the same contention. 2. Right-Winged Nutbag: Justice must be swift and harsh. Mathew: Justice should be intelligently executed, and appropriately applied. If justice should be swift and harsh, then how about everytime you get a speeding ticket, you have to pay $1,000 on the spot, to the officer, and argue your trial (and refund) later? I didn't think you'd like that. Swift and harsh is a blanket statement that is often used because people want to get revenge, and feel better when they see an evil-doer suffer. However, if you apply "swift and harsh" to all areas of law (I believe in CONSISTENCY!) then it wouldn't work. Try my phrase above instead. It will fit much better. 3. Scenario: The wrong person is executed by evidence found after the execution. Right-Winged Nutbag: Justice isn't always perfect! But it's the best system we have! Mathew: (rolling my eyes). That's a response uttered by someone without a functioning brain cell. Stating lack of perfection as a response to a flawed system is merely a sign of pure admitted ignorance to that system. Here's my deal on it. Let's say that the Right-Winged Nutbag (pick a prominent one, anyone you can think of...) was the one to be executed. Would they still be saying "oh well, it's the best system we have!" Of course not. They'd rewrite the law to save him or her. Which goes to prove where their thoughts really are. If you don't kill someone, you don't have to make a mistake of murdering the wrong person. And under the logic of pro-capital punishment right-winged NUTBAGS, they say you should kill the killer. In that case, if you vote to kill the wrong person, then you are a murderer. Hence, you should be executed. And that my friends, is logic in your face. So take away GOD, take away the Bible... and apply a little common sense to addressing the problems that exist in the argument of capital punishment-- ediited -- Sincerely, Mathew

Those who committ capital crimes must pay with their lives. It is not cheaper to keep a murderer alive than to execute him. It is not worse in prison than to execute an inmate on death row. Otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting to get stays of execution. Justice must be swift and harsh. Do not pity the murderer, rather pity his victim(s). Showing compassion for murderers harks back to the Jewish proverb: "Those who are kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind." Murderers like the BTK serial killer should be executed within a week of a guilty verdict. No appeals. Our society has lost its way, its moral compass. This is due to a number of reasons that all fall under the umbrella of decadence and demise. Lethal injection is a mockery of justice. Bring back the electric chair, the gas chamber, hanging or, better yet, the firing squad. Showing compassion for those that take the lives of the innocent does not mean you are an intellectual or a morally superior person. It means you are lost in the warm fuzzy warp of the Oprahspere.

This issue is primarily a state issue and as a political topic is therefore less heated than an issue like abortion which has been completely assumed by the courts- the recent Roper v Simmons decision notwithstanding. I am personally opposed to the death penalty for domestic criminal activity that does not threaten the foundation of our government. I have thought long and hard about this topic, and though the emotional inclination is to always want a child murderer or serial killer pulled limb from limb in the same grotesque manner they may have committed their crime I believe we should refrain from doing so for a couple reasons: (i) Though our system of justice is the envy of the world, it's not perfect. Indigent people get less of a defense than the rich and that is the way it is. I do not believe a person should be spared the ultimate punishment and another should have a greater chance of receiving it because they lack the ability to defend themselves. (ii) When a crime is committed, as horrific and atrocious as some are, the threat to society is relegated to the individuals and that threat can be neutralized by removing the individual from society permanently- forever! No parole. No good time. No goodies while in prison. Hard time for eternity. (iii) Though retribution is part, and should be part of our punishment system, wrath should not be- though the inclination is there. Now, I would like it to be noticed that I do not argue that the Supreme Court should declare all capital punishment cruel and unusual, and thus a violation of the 8th Amendment upon some evolving standard of justice. I actually argue against the Roper jurisprudence and believe this is wholly an issue that should be left for the People to decide at the state level. That is how a republican democracy works- and that is how issues should be settled. I will continue to argue and vote for candidates who generally support my priorities and ideological vision. And hopefully through the system of self-government we can eliminate the use of the death penalty. If not, the system is still working the way it should. Maybe all you abortion is a right advocates should learn something from this position.

The death penalty... Very much controversial, and I personally fully support it. I personally see this as extremely obvious: If this person does not value anothers life to the point that they will take it, they obviously do not value theres. Putting them in prison for life is just a free ride. Prison is not difficult, and they know that. If they know that if they kill, they will be killed, it will greatly lower the crime in this country

Here's how I see it. A person is told that the penalty for murder is death. This person is an intelligent person and fully understands the penalty. This person decided he wants to murder someone fully understanding the penalty if he's get caught. He commits the crime, is found guilty and is executed. THE MURDERER MADE THE CHOICE. Society carried out the sentence.

The problem with the Death Penalty is that it takes for to long to be executed. It is still cheaper to keep some one in prison for life then to go through the death penalty process which makes no sense at all. If you do the crime you should do the time and the time should be very short for murders.

A morally bankrupt policy. It is not our job, as human beings, to condemn other human beings to death. As we are ALL corruptible, to say that my neighbor deserves death is hypocritical, because I deserve death also. In other words, we are all imperfect beings and therefore do not have the right to be judges and jurors over others. Deciding who lives and who dies is a power that NO ONE, not even the government itself, should wield over individuals. What makes the death penalty even worse is that there are so many innocent people out there who have been wrongly put to death. While I know that no human system will ever be perfect, there have been too many innocent prisoners falling through the cracks and being put to death to ignore. That is, to say the least, an unforgivable wrong. Those who say that the Bible advocates the death penalty are at least halfway correct; the Bible is actually rather ambiguous on this issue. But for those who seem to think that the Bible is completely pro-death penalty I would point to the following verses: Jeremiah 46:10 -- "But that day belongs to the Lord, the Lord Almighty - a day of vengeance, for vengeance on his foes" John 8:7 -- "When they kept questioning [Jesus], he straightened up and said to them, 'if any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" Leviticus 19:18 -- "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people but love your neighbor as yourself" Luke 6:37 -- "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Matthew 7:2 -- "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank i your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"

Lots of people in prison deserve to be tortured to death, but since the justice system isn't perfect, we need to preserve their right of habeus corpus. They can't exactly file an appeal if they're dead.

I was arguing circular reasoning because to argue for the death penalty, but to be pro-life, is to believe you have the moral highground. You want to impose lethal injection on those who have committed 1st degree murder, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that proposal. I am arguing the deviation from reasoning. You believe women don't have the right to have abortion, and murder is wrong. However, this reasoning puts you as the purveyor of the right to live. You are deciding who deserves to live or die. The very notion you disagree with in the subjects of abortion or murder. By logic, if you are pro-death penalty, but anti-abortion, you have found yourself in the same logic trap as anti-death penalty, but pro-choice individuals. Deciding who deserves to live or die is to get into a trap.

Our society has developed the notion that you can't be pro-life and still support the death penalty. The reason that's a false statement can be answered logically: an unborn child did nothing to hurt anyone else and deserves his or hers life. A person who's killed ten people and molested children repeatedly, however, is not so innocent.

I'm all for it.

I have no strong feelings concerning the death penalty; however, too many people are confused regarding this issue. First, the matter of cost due to appeals is misunderstood. Even sentences of life imprisonment are usually appealed several times, and if life became the new capital punishment (ie the highest punishment legally available), then this sentence would be subject to basically the same levels of appeals and expense. Second, no one opposes using the best available and reliable evidence in criminal cases. The advent of new technologies (ie DNA) just makes death penalty cases more efficient and certain. In other words, DNA strengthens the argument for retaining the death penalty, unless one objects merely on morality grounds as opposed to the possibility of error. Third, while whether the death penalty deters crime is debatable, deterrence is only one of the four main goals of the criminal justice system, the others being revenge, restraint and rehabilitation. The death penalty certainly furthers the goals of revenge and restraint, notwithstanding whether one may personally agree with the goal of revenge or not. Fourth, some comments have discussed eyewitness testimony. Studies have shown that this type of evidence is actually the most unreliable form of evidence that is regularly used at trial. Fifth, some comments have discussed court appointed legal counsel. While it is true that there should be high requirements for counsel appointed for capital cases, this is by and large not a problem. People are not entitled to the best legal counsel, and substandard representation in death penalty cases are always caught on appeal. Sixth, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, there is nothing cruel and unusual about the death penalty. Cruelty is determined by the political process, and the death penalty has been imposed throughout history (ie not unusual). This means death penalty opponents should concentrate on having criminal statutes repealed, not overturned by the courts. Finally, this is clearly a state and not a federal issue as the appropriateness of punishments differs between sub-cultures. The bottom line is that the issue of the death penalty is purely a question let to the political process, the legal arguments for and against are largely academic, and that ultimately the issue boils down to society's concepts of morality which is an constant state of flux. Let the political process do its thing, but remember that one of the risks of a democracy is that you just might lose the vote.

There is no good reason that people like Sirhan Sirhan-who murdered Robert Kennedy in front of a lot of sober eye witnesses-are still around(although, I guess DNA testing could get him off).

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Do I believe that murderers, rapists, etc., etc., deserve to live? Of course not. But I also don't believe that it's in ANY person's right to take the life of another, including the government. If by killing someone is the only way to defend yourself then that's a different story. And then, of course, there's the issue that in the process of the death penalty, it's entirely possible that you could be condemning an innocent person. It wouldn't be justice in that case, but murder. Now, what the government should do to decrease crime is take away all the glory and splendor that the criminals get to live by (that means no TV, no books, etc.) and reduce them to two people living in the same 9X9 cell (if that), take away the nice hot meals (serve them cold rice and maybe a hot dog every now and then), and allow them a cold shower maybe three times a week. Do not allow the people who are sentenced to death or a life in jail without parole be let out on parole. I could never understand that logic. I'm always wondering, Why the hell is there even a 'life without parole sentence'? They could still get out! We are paying for their way of life in addition to our own. And to top that all off, they're probably living better than we are. Here we are, having to work for own meals, and yet here they're getting it for committing a crime! No wonder the crime rate's so up. People probably deliberately go out and commit a crime just to get into jail, knowing they don't have to work and that they can get parole. If we take away their cozy lifestyle and really make them suffer just by being in jail maybe the crime rate will drop. I believe that sentencing them to a death penalty is giving them the easy way out. And I would think that having them spend their life in jail will give them a better time to think (if they think) and have it weigh on their conscious. And if not that, then at least make them miserable for the rest of their life.

The death penalty is necessary. When people say that the Bible says thou shall not kill it's true it does. BUT IT's TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MURDER!! NOT THE PUNISHMENT FOR MURDERERS!! Okay I'm calm again..God always used death as punishment for wrongdoing. In the same Bible it was against God's law to break the Sabbath, for example. That meant you couldn't even cook on the Sabbath and the punishment if you did was, you guessed it...death. That death penalty was carried out by the appointed leaders (government) of God's people. Also, people say that the death penalty should be abolished because it doesn't work as a deterrent. So what? It's PUNISHMENT for the crime. Here's what you did and this is what you get. Death. If the next guy doesn't hear about it and decide not to kill he gets the death penalty too.

this is more of a states rights issue.

Yes, discuss it, then abolish it.

kill the murderes, kill the rapests, kill the burgelers, and kill the homeless...

Its biblical (the first five books of the Bible all advocate it), its justice, and its common sense - no wonder why liberals oppose it! I will go to my grave wondering about several things, with one of them being the following: How can anyone who supports abortion rights also oppose the death penalty? I guess liberals have more compassion for the guilty than they do for the innocent!

I am totally all for the death penalty. I also think the US should introduce 'caning' for smaller crimes, and fingers should be chopped off for littering and shoplifting. I think crime would go down alot. I also wished they would just round up all those people wasting our tax dollars sitting on death row, and execute them already. It is just ridiculous. They killed and torture people, but yet they are still living high off the hog that our tax money is paying for. Total crap if you ask me. I am so glad I live in Florida where the death penalty is in existance. Florida executed a guy a few months ago....

Don't bother with abortion, we'll kill em anyway when they get to Texas! GWB

How can the United States claim to be the moral authority in the world when we still execute people for crimes committed as minors? Even repressive regimes like China and Saudi Arabia have dispensed with the practice. Also, every other economically-advanced country in the world has abolished the death penalty entirely. The only reason for it is to satisfy peoples need for revenge. Ask the people of Ireland or the Balkans about revenge killing, it's a cycle which never, ever ends.

Eye for an eye. One of the best ways to prevent crime.

The voters should know the position on the death penalty of any candidate for governor that they are considering voting for.

I agree with Rebelyell1861 on this one. I support the practice of the death penalty of 100%. I believe that when you have taken away someone else's right to live, you deserve to have that right taken away from you as well. I do believe, however, that the system needs to be reformed to ensure that those who recieve the death penalty are most definately guilty, using methods such as DNA testing, etc. We must ensure that not one innocent person is executed. However, the death penalty in practice is still the right thing to do in my opinion. If you have taken away someone else's freedom to live, then your freedom to live shall be revoked as well. You shall have to answer to God in the afterlife.

Until there is a way to determine that 100% of people executed actually comitted the crimes they're being executed for, the death penalty should not be an option. Secondly, the death penalty should never be based on one's income, as it is now (not being able to hire adequete representation). Thirdly, how can Christians support the death penalty (FYI: an eye for an eye is from the Old Testament, not the Christian Bible, The New Testament)? Maybe we should select normal citizens at random to be the executioner and we'll see how quickly support for the death penalty erodes.

State sanctioned murder. Killing is killing. Osama Bin Laden is an exception.

The punishment itself is not wrong, corruption in the administering of the punishment is what should be scrutinized. I see nothing wrong with the use of the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime when they have been proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. It also saves tax money, puts the victim's family at ease, and saves the lives of other potential victims. And it's a lot more humane to quickly and painlessly end their lives than to keep them locked in a cell for the entire rest of their lives. Lifelong incarceration derranges the mind and in fact dehumanizes the convict. An uncle of mine has worked in a federal prison for decades and he's told me stories that make my skin crawl about what prisoners do to each other and themselves when hope for freedom is lost and insanity sets in. Now you tell me which is more humane and compassionate.

criminals should have to payback their debts before leaving this place, killing them costs more to the suffering parties than making them give back to society.