2
2
0
Recently a few of our discussions have met in politically clashing realms. Yet as professionals we have prevailed in civil discourse to ensure a pointed if not agreeable discussion. My question to you is, Do you think the death penalty is enough of a deterrence to justify the expense, margin of error, and social repercussions?
International Affairs
Justice
Death Penalty
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 15
5
5
0
The only issue I have is that I think that a person to get the death penalty is that the conviction has to include DNA testing. To many people in prison for crimes they did not commit.
(5)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
LCpl Mark Lefler, I will concede that fact. The DNA and Forensics evidence should be there and today there is not much room for error because testing and analysis of the evidence has come so far. There is less than a 1% margin of error if I remember correctly from different things I have read and seen.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Even if the death penalty is more expensive, I think there's a place for it. I know if a loved one of mine were murdered, I would not be terribly open to the argument that it costs too much to carry out justice. And I'm sure that many victims' families feel that way as well.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I'd rather see 99 people who deserve death serve life in prison, than see 1 who is innocent put to death. There remains at least the chance that new information comes to light that could exonerate someone who was convicted.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I support the death penalty and voted "Other" because the other answers don't quite fit.
If a person commits a horrendous crime they need to be sentenced to death. I would hazard a guess that 99.99 percent of those convicted of these horrendous crimes knew exactly what they were doing and as you see almost every single one of them have no remorse nor any feelings until its time to take the lethal injection.
I know it sounds barbaric but once sentenced to death they should not spend the next 10 to 30 years in the appeals process, get it done already.
If a person commits a horrendous crime they need to be sentenced to death. I would hazard a guess that 99.99 percent of those convicted of these horrendous crimes knew exactly what they were doing and as you see almost every single one of them have no remorse nor any feelings until its time to take the lethal injection.
I know it sounds barbaric but once sentenced to death they should not spend the next 10 to 30 years in the appeals process, get it done already.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Call me inhumane but the death penalty of yesteryear was effective and cost effective (maybe a bit morbid) but public hangings, firing squads, etc. were very much a deterrent. Now people know that IF they get the death penalty it will be years down the road and probably several appeals attempt to overturn the ruling. That is no deterrent. The "harsh" justice of yesteryear was swift compared to todays standards and that also played a role in the deterrence.
I feel that if you are caught "red handed" and found guilty and sentanced to death by your peers then from the date of sentencing you have 180 days to form an appeal, if you lose you get another 180 days to present any new evedence only in your last appeal. If you lose that you have 24 hours before sentencing is carried out.
I feel that if you are caught "red handed" and found guilty and sentanced to death by your peers then from the date of sentencing you have 180 days to form an appeal, if you lose you get another 180 days to present any new evedence only in your last appeal. If you lose that you have 24 hours before sentencing is carried out.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Bad people are going to commit crime, good people are not. The death penalty is the best and most cost effective way to manage the prison population, which is out of control. Established for certain crimes, and administered after "reasonable appeal". Not to be taken lightly. Huge responsibility on society. It is necessary.
Also, going to prison should suck. No TV, No internet, No gym. Lock down or working the vast majority of the day, should be very hard. Nobody should want to go back.
Also, going to prison should suck. No TV, No internet, No gym. Lock down or working the vast majority of the day, should be very hard. Nobody should want to go back.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
If someone commits murder (unless they took a life for self defense) then they should be given the death penalty. The thing is, if you give someone the death sentence then PUT THEM TO DEATH IMMEDIATELY! Stop waiting 10, 20 or 30 years later to execute them, the guilty person has 31 days to appeal and PROVE their innocence, PERIOD.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Forensics are so much more advanced than they were even 30 years ago. We have been able to go back and release people from death row based on forensic advancements. My point is that yes the process is long and drawn out but for good reason; to hopefully prevent murdering an innocent human being. There can be no "black and white" rules when dealing with another life.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Im for the death penalty. An eye for an eye. However, in some particularly bad cases I think a lifetime behind bars would give them more time to regret it. I think the death penalty is to quick. That may sound odd to some, but If it were me, I'd prefer death to life in prison. I have a few other ideas that's best not discussed in a public setting.
(2)
(0)
Although I believe in the death penalty I do not believe it is a deterrent to violent crime. I would also add we must be sure all evidence proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused is guilty of the heinous crime. An example would be Ted Bundy and I would have no qualms about his sentence of death. All these criminals on death row is a joke with all the appeals. No matter what we do they cost us tax payers money. If I had a love one murdered I would rather see them put to death then live their life out in prison. I Have no idea what the best answer is.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google