Do you support or oppose the Death Penalty

[Illiniwek]

Oppose.
1. True pro-lifer. Support life from conception to natural death.
2. Bad precedent to let the government kill its citizens.
3. Too many innocent people have been put on death row in the past. Also, one person is too many.
4. Life in prison may be a tougher penalty.

[CountyTy90]

Oppose.
1. True pro-lifer. Support life from conception to natural death.
2. Bad precedent to let the government kill its citizens.
3. Too many innocent people have been put on death row in the past. Also, one person is too many.
4. Life in prison may be a tougher penalty.

This.

I agree 100% and I feel that those who are pro-choice, yet against the death penalty or vice versa, are somewhat hypocritical. I do, however, see the argument for the death penalty making more sense than those who are pro-choice.

[tallguy23]

If someone murdered a loved one of mine, I'd sleep better at night knowing they aren't on Earth anymore.

Having said that, there have been way too many innocent people put on death row for me to trust the system.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I oppose the death penalty.  I oppose life without parole.  I support life with opportunity for parole for the most serious crimes.  Parole reviews should never be more than 10 years after the sentence begins and never more than 3-5 years apart after that.  I'd even make an exception of 5 years after incarceration for those over age 60.

1st degree murder with no prior criminal record should get you a minimum of 20 years with possible early release in certain circumstances.  Such as no intent to murder again after mental evaluation, at least 2/3 sentence served with no problem incidents in prison, etc.

Multiple murders should get you life with the (probably very unlikely) possibility of parole.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Completely agree with everything in Snowguy's post, and I honestly think that would be a much better poll - do you support Life WO Possibility of Parole - which would probably narrowly lose on Atlas (or maybe a moderate loss with our changing demographics), but I'd be completely in favor of eliminating there.

[RR1997]

Support, but it should be used very rarely.

[angus]

I do not believe we have had this discution before

many times.

I oppose it in all cases.  Also, like snowyguy, I generally oppose life without parole.  Unlike snowyguy, I don't like the idea of one-size-fits-all prescribed sentences.  I certainly don't agree with the concept of parole in general.  That's just setting people up for failure.

If you engage in some activity that doesn't comport with society's rules, then you are probably very antisocial.  You're a misfit.  This would imply that you need to be brainwashed into thinking like the rest of us.  I think I prefer the Navajo way.  Get drunk and run over somebody and kill them?  Probably the more fundamental problem is that you're a drunk, and that's how we should spend our resources.  Caught your wife giving a thorough sportfuck to her boss, and killed them both in a fit of rage?  Probably the fundamental problem is that you married the wrong chick.  Robbed a bank?  Probably you didn't know what else to do, since you either didn't pay attention when they were trying to teach you things in school, or because your parents didn't parent you very well.  I'm not making excuses for misfits, but generally if you are a square peg in a society of round holes, then you are really fucked up.  That doesn't mean that you should be burned to a crisp.  It may just mean that you need to be rounded a bit.  Now, maybe society doesn't have any more right to round you than you have to square the round holes, but there's the matter of majority rule.  These differences, of course, should not have occurred because they should have been dealt with before they occurred, but given that they did occur, then society either needs to exile you (put you in a capsule and send you to a Mars colony with other misfits) or try to rehabilitate you.  I think that in many cases rehabilitation is possible.  Also, we're really not yet set up for the Mars colony.  In any case, I certainly wouldn't want to be on the jury that is charged with deciding whether a man deserves to live.  Maybe I'm just weak, but the very idea just creeps me out.  Thanks, but no thanks.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Life without parole is justice.  Prison should become labor camps too where prisoners are exposed to extremely hard work without pay in order to deter crimes.  This would save money in the private sector for the fact that work can be done for big corporations without actually having to pay a worker.  The downside is that companies benefiting from this slave labor would be the ones with political ties.  Banning corporate donations to political campaigns is part of this strategy. 

Imagine a serial killer who is forced to wake up at 4am and work until 10p.m. without a break and is never paid.  This is what they get for murdering people.  This labor camp policy would only apply to the most severe crimes.  I'm with the victims not the criminals like alot of young liberals who think they're so smart by making up creative arguments of criminal rights and thinking they're cool because they oppose establishment. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

oppose

[angus]

Life without parole is justice.  Prison should become labor camps too where prisoners are exposed to extremely hard work without pay in order to deter crimes.  This would save money in the private sector for the fact that work can be done for big corporations without actually having to pay a worker.  The downside is that companies benefiting from this slave labor would be the ones with political ties.  Banning corporate donations to political campaigns is part of this strategy. 

Imagine a serial killer who is forced to wake up at 4am and work until 10p.m. without a break and is never paid.  This is what they get for murdering people.  This labor camp policy would only apply to the most severe crimes.  I'm with the victims not the criminals like alot of young liberals who think they're so smart by making up creative arguments of criminal rights and thinking they're cool because they oppose establishment. 

That's honest.  I can respect it on some level.  If you don't play by the rules, we're gonna make you suffer.  That's what is says.  It says it in a more honest way than hanging.   But it is also expensive to society, and it doesn't solve the underlying problem, and that is why I don't agree with it.

It's an gut-felt response, but it doesn't help society.  In fact, it is a burden on society.  All of us taxpayers must now support, in some cases for many years, the physical existence of a citizen who might be able to support himself, if given the proper brainwashing.  I think I'm more into rehabilitation (brainwashing).  Generally, I'm not a fan of brainwashing, but if you're so confused that you can't seem to understand that it is offensive to most of us to murder or rape or pillage or burn cities and hijack planes, then maybe a little brainwashing is justified.  I've actually thought about this.  I think that rehabilitation is justified when you're likely to get in the way of my business.  A murderer, for example, is the sort of person who is likely to get in my way, which means means that I have to exterminate you (distasteful), lock you away at hard labor (satisfaction and vengeance, for sure, but a waste of resources since slave labor is inefficient), or rehabilitate.  I'd go with the latter option.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Life without parole is justice.  Prison should become labor camps too where prisoners are exposed to extremely hard work without pay in order to deter crimes.  This would save money in the private sector for the fact that work can be done for big corporations without actually having to pay a worker.  The downside is that companies benefiting from this slave labor would be the ones with political ties.  Banning corporate donations to political campaigns is part of this strategy. 

Imagine a serial killer who is forced to wake up at 4am and work until 10p.m. without a break and is never paid.  This is what they get for murdering people.  This labor camp policy would only apply to the most severe crimes.  I'm with the victims not the criminals like alot of young liberals who think they're so smart by making up creative arguments of criminal rights and thinking they're cool because they oppose establishment. 

That's honest.  I can respect it on some level.  If you don't play by the rules, we're gonna make you suffer.  That's what is says.  It says it in a more honest way than hanging.   But it is also expensive to society, and it doesn't solve the underlying problem, and that is why I don't agree with it.

It's an gut-felt response, but it doesn't help society.  In fact, it is a burden on society.  All of us taxpayers must now support, in some cases for many years, the physical existence of a citizen who might be able to support himself, if given the proper brainwashing.  I think I'm more into rehabilitation (brainwashing).  Generally, I'm not a fan of brainwashing, but if you're so confused that you can't seem to understand that it is offensive to most of us to murder or rape or pillage or burn cities and hijack planes, then maybe a little brainwashing is justified.  I've actually thought about this.  I think that rehabilitation is justified when you're likely to get in the way of my business.  A murderer, for example, is the sort of person who is likely to get in my way, which means means that I have to exterminate you (distasteful), lock you away at hard labor (satisfaction and vengeance, for sure, but a waste of resources since slave labor is inefficient), or rehabilitate.  I'd go with the latter option.

For drug offenders, I'd give them the option of treatment for the first two charges they face.  This is within reason of course.  If they involve our children or have such a massive amount that they're running a business, then that's a different story.  However, for your common criminal who is found with crack or cocaine, allow them to choose rehabilitation partly paid for by the state. 

As for the labor camps, I was referring to people who would be on death row, multiple rape offenders, and those who have committed violent crimes against other humans. 

Regarding prisoners who didn't commit heinous crimes and will be leaving prison at some point, I'm in full support of an optional state funded program that teaches them job skills.  Someone who has served their time by spending years in their cell has lost their necessary skills for competing in the job market and becoming a contributing member of society.  These prisoners should have the option of taking classes that help them learn the basics for dress code, interviews, grammar if needed, etc.  I'm not saying we treat them to a free ride at trade school or anything, but it's something that could help keep them out of trouble in the future. 

[Leinad]

Oppose strongly in every case. It's a horrid practice for a civilized nation, a tragic case of government that's far too powerful for anyone's good, and a waste of money to boot. We're the only western country that still allows it, and there's a reason for that.

[DemPGH]

Strongly oppose. It's neither a deterrent nor is it even close to administered fairly or evenly. And that's really always been the case. It's always been used very arbitrarily. The State should not wield that kind of power.

[P123]

Strongly support, in fact I believe we should massively expand usage of capital punishment (and use it much more). People like Charlie Manson and Richard Rodriguez don't deserve to live.

[Mr. Smith]

It should be an option, just one we don't use all that often.

This.

That said, I gladly supported doing away with it in California's 2012 elections just because of how badly organized death row turned out to be.

[Figueira]

No. The death penalty is terrible. End it immediately.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Oppose. It doesn't serve any meaningful purpouse and the idea of retribution is shallow one.

[SingingAnalyst]

I *might* support it under the following circumstances:
1. The list of crimes for which the death penalty may be exacted must be limited to first-degree murder or "worse" (terrorism or murder of a child for instance)
2. The standard in the US for rejecting the null hypothesis of innocence is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For crimes which carry the possibility of death penalty, there should in addition be a stricter standard, beyond a shadow of doubt. (Same trial). If a defendant is found guilty under the first standard, but not the second, they must not receive the death penalty. Only if they are found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt can they be subjected to the penalty phase in which they might receive the death penalty.

[Vosem]

Strongly support; prisons should be centers for rehabilitation and not factories for producing more criminals and rightless laborers. The death penalty is an absolutely necessary part of any real justice system, and I've made this point countless times.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Strongly support; prisons should be centers for rehabilitation and not factories for producing more criminals and rightless laborers. The death penalty is an absolutely necessary part of any real justice system, and I've made this point countless times.

Saying prisons should be centers for rehabilitation does not logically lead to support for the death penalty.

[Sir Mohamed]

Oppose. The risk to execute to wrong person is too high. And the government has no right to kill People, except terrorists in cambat.

[RightBehind]

Ricky Jackson is one of the many reasons to oppose.

[beaver2.0]

No, because I don't believe that it is justified but hard labor would be a good replacement.