I'm against it. I'll give reasons later if this gets good.

Discuss.

Against it. The system is too flawed to even work properly, the former Gov. of our state, George Ryan, a Republican, suspended the death penalty when they found out there were men on it who had not committed any crime at all.

Besides, how does it make us any different than psychopaths beheading contractors? What, because they chop their heads off, and we lay them down and give them an injection? Its all going to the same place anyway. The U.S. has one of the worst records in the entire world for its use of the death penalty. I'd did a presentation a few years ago on the death penalty and the U.S. and correct me if I'm wrong, the only countries who execute children are the U.S., China, Iran, Libya, and a couple other horrible places. Its good to see that people care about a "culture of life" in this country.

Against

110% for it

if this gets good, ill give my reasons later

My brother has a good argument against it. He is deeply religious and pro-life. From his view if you're going to be pro-life, you cant support any form of Gov. sponsored death.

Against it. I am not very religious so for me your life is the only true thing that you ever really own and who am I to take that from you? I also happen to believe that spending the rest of your life behind bars is much more of a punishment than putting someone to death.

If you are religious and believe in a higher power that is the ultimate judge who are you to act as someone to usurp that power? Isn't eternity in damnation worse than putting someone to death? Isn't it "god's" choice what happens to the person and not your place to kill them?

As I implied in my interview, I'm against it. It wastes too much time and money to properly operate, plus there is no taking it back it an innocent man is put to death.

Also, if we're looking for a deterrent, I'd prefer the O'Reilly approach--send unrehabitable violent criminals to Alaska and have them split stones in the cold for the rest of their life.

Except that research shows that the death penalty has little to no deterrent effect. Violent crime rates do not tend to be influenced.

On the other hand, rehabilitation has been shown to have just as little effect.

Surprise, surprise. I am NOT against the death penalty as a whole. I think that the WAY that it is imposed in this country is so bad, however, that an Illinois-style moratorium is probably in order to get the system completely rehabilitated. It is applied arbitrarily, in a racist manner, and for far too many crimes that do not warrant such a penalty. Additionally, the mere requirement of a judge, or even a jury, to decided that a crime rises to the level of a capital offense is too low a standard in my opinion. But I definitely think there are people who deserve to die for their crimes, although I could be convinced that a crueler punishment than death could be a substitute.

--PunkDavid

Totally for it.

There are two types of "deterrent". Specific deterent and general deterrent. The death penalty has an excellent record of specific deterrent. It does not have any better record of general deterant than does a long prison sentence.

--PunkDavid

Doesn't a long prison sentence have just as much success as a specific deterrent? If the guy is dead, he is not going to do it again. If the guy is in jail, he is not going to do it again.

This is a good, non-religous/ethical answer to the question.

It makes sense to me from that standpoint.

As well as the ethical issues.

Thanks. I hate trying to involve moral aspects in public policy--you just can't win.

And shouldn't!

Separate is best when it comes to legislation.

The way I interpret "deterrent" is that it's a mechanism to prevent people from committing the crime in the first place, instead of preventing a specific individual from doing it again.

And I fully realize that there are criminals that cannot be deterred.

OK, I'm not quite sure if I can get on board with this one. Could you explain it a bit more?

I am against all violence.

Trial by jury is not a foolproof system. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

Not beyond all possible doubt.

For that reason alone, there will inevitably be a number of people, who get wrongfully convicted. If you sentence them to death, and years later evidence turns up that conclusively proves that the person executed was in fact innocent, what do you do? Say "oops!"?

Can't think of a more terrible thing society can impose on an individual than the death penalty for a crime you didn't commit. Even one such mistake is too many.

Completely against it.