The Death Penalty for or against?

2014-10-21T00:18:41-04:00

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?

Response by SSG William Patton made Oct 21 at 2014 11:37 PM

2014-10-21T23:37:47-04:00

The death penalty is by far more expensive than life in prison. Even if 40 were the life sentence, it would cost about a quarter of a million less than the average death penalty. Each death penalty is guaranteed an automatic appeal to the US Supreme Court. It may go through lower courts based on the different appeals that can be filed, but in the end, it will be decided by the Justices on the Supreme Court. It will take a long time and lawyers want to be paid. The average cost, depending upon the level of security, is between $25 and $60 dollars per year per inmate to incarcerate. Most are housed for about $27 thousand per year. The average appeal is $1.4 million. It is much cheaper to impose a life sentence than death penalty. I am not opposed to the death penalty, as it does provide society with its retribution, but it does not deter other homicides. Maybe if we went back to public hanging, it would have the deterrent affect, but not as it is done now.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 12:36 PM

2014-10-22T12:36:19-04:00

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 4:13 AM

2014-10-25T04:13:05-04:00

I am for the death penalty. The punishment should fit the crime as well in my opinion. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for a man who has life locked up for shooting up a school full of kids for example. He should be gone instead of getting the chance to live a life locked up or not. A life for a life.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2014 11:23 PM

2014-10-26T23:23:26-04:00

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.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 26 at 2014 11:30 PM

2014-10-26T23:30:52-04:00

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.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Oct 27 at 2014 12:28 AM

2014-10-27T00:28:43-04:00

If nothing else, it prevents that person from committing any more crimes. Life in prison without parole is costly in the geriatric years. Big time Medical costs. Also, in Idaho, we have had several "life without parole" committing murder and assaults in prison. I really don't know about the deterrence aspect but see sentence #1.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 3:40 PM

2014-11-12T15:40:26-05:00

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.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Nov 13 at 2014 4:56 AM

2014-11-13T04:56:16-05:00

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.

Response by SFC Michael W. made Jan 8 at 2015 8:50 PM

2015-01-08T20:50:23-05:00

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.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Mar 3 at 2015 12:11 AM

2015-03-03T00:11:06-05:00

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.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made May 18 at 2015 9:15 PM

2015-05-18T21:15:18-04:00

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.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 22 at 2015 5:21 PM

2015-06-22T17:21:04-04:00

Most of the mass killers have a few screws rattling in their heads, and believe their linear connection with penalty is not their first priority.

Response by SSG Paul Setterholm made Jun 22 at 2015 8:54 PM

2015-06-22T20:54:09-04:00

I feel that the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases (mass murder for example) otherwise I do not support it.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 9:08 PM

2015-06-22T21:08:28-04:00

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt should lead to immediate termination.

Response by SGT Jim Trogdon made Jun 22 at 2015 10:09 PM

2015-06-22T22:09:40-04:00

Capital crimes deserves capital punishment. No appeal, no delays.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Aug 16 at 2015 2:29 PM

2015-08-16T14:29:38-04:00

Frankly, I am not sure what I believe. I am torn between the death penalty (So the crime will never occur again) and not the death penalty (retribution).
A capital crime was committed against me.
My father was a Federal Administrative Law Judge. I Highly doubt-with all of his wisdom and compassion-that he would have been/was in favor of the death penalty. However, I do not know for sure; if he was against the death penalty or for it. I never asked him.