Do you support the death penalty?

[Cassius]

No.

Yes and we should replace the chair with the noose.

Budget hawk?

I think Nebraska is the only state that still uses the electric chair, although I did hear about one guy in Virginia who chose the chair over lethal injection.  Why anyone would want that instead of lethal injection is beyond me.

Some people have a fear of needles, including myself (albeit a rather mild one that I can control). Anyway, as to the question, yes, I support the death penalty.

[RR1997]

Yes (D R). Most people who get it deserve it. However, I do think it should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty.

[TJ in Oregon]

No (R)

[Supersonic]

Strong no.

[Niemeyerite]

No.

I don't get this:

Yes (D). Most people who get it deserve it. However, I do think it should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty.

For me, the problem is that MOST, but not EVERY people who get it deserve it.

But even if we think they deserve it, I agree with AggregateDemand on this issue (!!). Why killing a person that's already incarcerated? That's what I'd call revenge. Not suitable for a democratic system.

[TDAS04]

Nebraska actually replaced the chair with the injection in 2009.  There is still a small number of states where the convict can choose the method, but lethal injection is now available in all states with the death penalty.

[7,052,770]

Strongly opposed to the American system, because I don't trust juries or judges to make the call, and because it has been demonstrated conclusively that the sentence is handed out disproportionately to the poor an minorities, even when adjusting for all other factors.

Indifferent on the theoretical aspects. I don't feel bad one bit for someone like the Boston marathon guy or Timothy McVeigh who is indisputably guilty. I wouldn't object to a system that allowed the prisoner to choose whether he wanted to be executed or stay in jail for life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes (I)  But not the current American system.  It's more like roulette than justice and it takes way, way, way, way, way, way, too long for cases to work their way through our court system.

[MurrayBannerman]

Hitler, Osama, etc... yea, but we don't live in a society where those clowns are running around with mass followings.

So, that's a no from me.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Yes (R)

[RosettaStoned]

 Yes, I support the death penalty for murderers, rapists and big time drug dealers.

[PPT Spiral]

A strong no from me.

[RogueBeaver]

Yes (R)

[Tender Branson]

Hell no ! (I/O)

[dead0man]

Yes, but only for the worst of the worst of the worst.  I'm talking big time treason and particularly heinous and violent crimes (regardless of death or not).

[Franzl]

Of course not.

[Hifly]

No, not for anyone (D)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Like stated many, many times before, NO (I)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No; it's prone to error, potentially leads to martyrdom, haphazard in its implementation, costs ridonkulous amounts, doesn't really deter crime etc. etc.

[Flake]

I’m a huge flip flopper on this issue, to be honest. I question the moral justification of the death penalty, and the states right to end the life of one of its citizens, but I also think that 99.99% of those executed in the last twenty years deserved it. I also had a relative who was murdered in a home invasion in 2011, which is a personal bias.

What exactly are you basing this on?

Empirical data. Like I said, I really don't care about the issue, and IIRC, only 30-40 people out of the thousands of people executed in the United States were of questionable guilt. Only five of them have been completely exonerated. Obviously that is the fault of the justice system in general and not the act of execution.

I'm not sure where you get 99.99%.  The remainder would be 1 in 10,000.  There have less than 5,000 executions in the US in the last 20 years.

30-40 people of questionable guilt?  Still way too much.  There is no justification to risk executing a single innocent person.  Sure, it's the fault of the justice system, but the justice system should not have the authority to kill people.  The justice system can never be perfect.

I don't see how anyone could support the death penalty after reading this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/12/after-nearly-30-years-on-death-row-glenn-ford-is-exonerated-and-free/
This is the victim of the corrupt justice system.  Innocent people can be executed because of corrupt police officers who know their innocence, and because of judges liking to appear "tough" for political purposes.

Many consider the human capacity for evil as a justification for harsh authority.  The problem is, people with authority can also be evil.  Human society will never be perfect enough to precisely determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die.  There should be punishment for lawbreaking, and the risk of punishing the innocent is unavoidable.  However, the negative effects of the imperfect justice system can at least be moderated by nixing the right of society impose death sentences.  Life imprisonment is appropriate for the very worst crimes.  It's harsh, but at least the wrongly convicted would have the rest of their lives to prove their innocence (and it would also be easier on the convicts' families).

I personally think some people deserve to die, but I have no faith in society to make accurate determinations on who does deserve death.  Occasionally, I hear about horrific cases that cause my emotional side to want the disgusting criminals dead, but then I remind myself that allowing even the worst of the worst to live is necessary to prevent the justice system from committing the ultimate injustice against an innocent person.

Everything about this post is perfect.

[TNF]

No (I/O)

Killing is only permissible in self-defense, or the protection of another person in immenent danger of being killed, or in the context of a war/revolution.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Yes (D). Most people who get it deserve it. However, I do think it should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty.

[WillTheMormon]

No. Only God can end somebody's life no matter what crime they committed. I am for much harsher prisons though.

[SWE]

No (I/O)

Killing is only permissible in self-defense, or the protection of another person in immenent danger of being killed, or in the context of a war/revolution.

[Simfan34]

No. Only God can end somebody's life no matter what crime they committed. I am for much harsher prisons though.