Just curious, and I don't want to start any flame wars. In fact, you don't even have to post something to justify your vote if you don't want to. I just want to know how the results end up among my fellow Gangster BB posters.

The Death Penalty single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Definitely in favor of it. Does it serve as a deterent? No. Does it end recidivism? Yes. If you eliminate career criminals - people who have decided to spend their lives violating the rights of others - then the crime rate goes way down.

That being said, to make this work, you would have to ensure that the evidence is solid and that the appeals process does not last for decades. When people stay locked up, they are not paying a debt to society because the tax payers are footing the bill for their room, board and medical expenses. In effect, victims pay twice.

So yes - for those whose guilt is clear - "Try 'em and fry 'em".

Yeah, if you handed me a 12 gauge, I'd blow Bin Laden's fuckin' head off.

I'm against the death penalty, but not for moral reasons. My reasoning is it isn't harsh enough. This isn't an official number, but I'd guess probably around 90% of all death row inmates executed are executed by means of the lethal injection. If you've done something terrible enough to warrant the death penalty, you deserve far worse than having a needle stuck in your arm. Scott Peterson, for example. They're gonna put his ass to sleep, if he doesn't croak on death row beforehand. It's not justice, IMO.

Mmm, perhaps a bit more "Hammurabi"-esque, then, XXX? I certainly agree.

I'm against it.

As I've said before.....

--As recent developments in DNA evidence has proven, there are too damn many mistakes.

--Not to mention that it seems to be applied unfairly to those who can't level the playing field because they don't have the same financial resources that the prosecutors have.

What about people like Scott Peterson then, Plaw? And perhaps this program would not necessarily be retroactive, with your point about DNA. The problem now is that all of the death row appeals and such are costing more than a life sentence would.

Point taken about the monetary situation, but I wonder if there are any (reasonably accurate) statistics on how many death row cases are legitimately in-question and how many are accurate convictions? I mean, that is, if we aren't counting the idea of a simple appeal as that of an unwarrented conviction...how many cases have been overturned thereafter? Certainly, I would think most on death row have a legitimate reason to be there, the majority at least being the causation to their residence their.

Against it. Not for the monetary or DNA reasons. I don't feel the taking of a life, no matter how heinous the crime, is justified. Let them suffer in their own internal hell. Minimal provisions; just enough to stay alive to ponder their worthless existence.

I'm all for it, provided guilt has been proven completely. This DNA evidence turning over past convictions is really a scary thing. I know that the reason my state, Michigan, doesn't have the death penalty is because the first person they ever hanged turned out to be the wrong guy (the real criminal admitted it after fleeing to Canada which, at the time, did not extridite to the United States).

I also think it should be a lot more harsh than a simple leathal injection. I'm with George Carlin on this one, it should be painful, gruesome, and shown on Par-Per-View.

PLaw's reasons are all true and valid reasons for being opposed to the death penalty, and reasons I don't think too many consider when forming an opinion on this.

However, like Mary Cas, I don't feel it's right to take a human life for any reason either. If I were ever on a jury that the death penalty was the punishment, I would have to let my views be known and be dismissed if necessary. I voted No.


TIS

I couldn't agree more, I'm against it as well

I couldn't agree more, I'm against it as well [/b][/quote]me too

I'm against it as well, though I respect how others could feel differently for personal reasons. And for what it's worth, it does end up costing the country more to execute someone than for them to serve life in prison.

I agree. Death would be too easy of a punishment. But then you have to be worried if they escape and do it all over again. But I'm against it anyway.

Impressive results so far (9-8)...and a good question. I'm against. In my philosofy it's very weird that a governent who says that killing is not aloud (yeah, ofcourse) they kill people who do so...a contradiction in my opinion.

Surprise, surprise...I'm with plaw, TIS, MayCas and the rest on this...no.

Im all for it.Scores stand at (10-10)

I respect the opinions of those who are against it based on moral (and religious) grounds. I agree that morally (and religiously), murder is not justifiable, in any way. However, I'm of the opinion that some people deserve to die. If my daughter was raped and murdered, I'm sorry, I'd like to see the bastard that did it fry in that electric chair. Would it bring her back? No, it wouldn't, but that's not the point here. Why should the man who took the life of my daughter be aloud to live? Let him suffer in his own "internal Hell"? I can see the logic in that, sure, but what if they aren't sorry? What if they feel no remorse whatsoever? Richard Ramirez, for example, the "Nightstalker." I'm sure many of you are familiar with his story, but for those who arent, there's an in-depth story about him at Crimelibrary.com That son of a b*tch deserves to fry for what he did, morally speaking or not!

I have to agree with xxx if any one ever did any thing to one of my daughters that person would want the police to get to them first because i would kill them with my bare hands. Some one like that does not desreve to live.

This became a bit of a topic recently here and so I've scrambled to find the appropriate link to it: Death penalty \'at record levels\'

For those who get bored easily by an article just scroll down and read the last three paragraphs. Don't worry, they're incredibly short.

Great article Turi, for those who wouldn't give it a click here is the last three paragraphs:

Unfortunatly, that's nothing I haven't heard before. I don't think there's really much of a question that the death penalty can and is abused. However I believe that, if applied fairly, the death penalty is completely justified for murderers and terrorist (I would expand it to rapists and child molesters as well). Basically, I'm saying I have absolutly no moral objection to capital punishment as a concept, but I have major qualms over the fairness of its execution (no pun intended).

No one has commented on this to my knowledge, but just follow me a second here....

A religious fanatic blows up a public place at a well timed moment, killing innocent civilians. He then goes on a murderous rampage killing infidels that he thinks are violating God's word. He eludes U.S. authorities by hiding in caves and in mountains, all the time receiving food, shelter and help from the locals. He is apprehended by mistake.

His name is Eric Rudolph. He is a terrorist. He was harbored by people who have never been arrested.

He just plea bargained to life in prison, all the time mocking the judge and winking at the prosecutors.

If his name were Arik Al Radalf and he were a Muslim from Afghanistan, and had he done the same things would he have received such a deal?

My point is that the death penalty is not applied fairly. Until that happens we don't even need to address the moral aspects.

I appreciate everyone's input. I've always felt that if it were used in every case where someone was intentionally murdered, it would deter crime. Since it's not, I don't think it's completely accurate to just flatly say it doesn't deter crime. After all, it's never been used on such an encompassing level, so there's really no way to come to that conclusion with any degree of accuracy (and, unfortunately, it never will be used that widely). I sincerely believe that at least some criminals (or would-be criminals) would think twice before icing someone if they realized the consequences would inevitably result in the death of themselves. Of course, murders done in passion, domesticity, etc. would likely not decrease.

As for the death of "innocent" victims (before DNA, etc.), that would have to be the price paid. I'm not sure if I would sleep easily knowing that. BUT...I'd rather have that in place than the laughable judicial system that's in place now.

I think we respond to this issue on three levels: emotional, intellectual (or rational) and spiritual.

If my daughter were a victim...emotional. I might want to choke the bastard myself and let the authorities mete out my punishment.

Intellectually I could go for all the DNA, deterrent arguements, but....

Spiritually: God is the judge.

Some food for thought. Abortion - murder; what if that child was to grow up to be the doctor who would discover a cure for cancer. Capital punishment - murder; what if that person wrote a book in prison that inspired others to do great things or NOT commit rape, murder, etc.

Food for thought, MC...thanks.

Like Tookie Williams, the former leader of the Cribs....who inspired people to don't go the way he did.

I support the death penalty 100%. The only thing I hate about it is the appeal after endless appeal. That and the fact that it takes so long before it's finally done.

I don't believe in the death penalty. But, not because I think its inhumane or anything.

First, let me address the actual trial process. It is flawed. There are innocent men that go to jail and there are guilty men that are let free. I don't think that there should be so many technicalities, for one thing. For example, say they find a pair of gloves, stained with blood matching the victim of a murder. Now, say the police searched for them without a warrent. True, they searched for them without a warrent, they should be punished, but, I just don't find that keeping the gloves out of evidence at all fair to the victim, or the family of the victim, or the government that is trying to put the criminal away. I don't know the solution, but I know that there is a problem.

Now, more towards the death penalty...I just don't find it much of a punishment. Let me explain...

Say this man brutally rapes and kills this little girl. He is found guilty and the judge sentences him to the death penalty, the worst you can get. I just don't find this very fair. this little girl was tortured and humiliated before being, lets say, beaten to death, and this man gets a needle? How is that even an eye for an eye? Now, I am not saying that we pay someone to brutally rape and kill him. That is just ignorant and completely inhumane. However, keeping every guilty party in jail, does cost the government a lot of money. So, my solution...okay well I don't have a solution. I don't know everything, but I know when I disagree with something, and this, I disagree with.

I'm all for the "Code of Hammurabi". An eye for an eye.