The Death Sentence.

In order to have the state kill you for killing someone else, it really does take alot.

We're talking AT LEAST 3 appeals to make sure all of the law was followed in the Original Jurisdiction trial.

Then you have to be physically well. If you have cancer, a cold, an STD, anything, they won't kill you.

You have to be mentally well. No depression. No schizophrenia. Nothing.

You have to have no reason to want to die to be put to death by the death penalty. Alot of people don't realize that.

So the death penalty doesn't necessarily mean the DEATH penalty. It means the Death Penalty for those in perfect physical and mental health, who have gone through all of the trials without an aquittal (sp?).

Behind My Crimson Eyes:

How would you feel if it was one of your relatives, or your best friend, that was brutally murdered?
Would you want the murderer to be able to repeat the crime?
Even if they are in maximum security in a prison, there is still a chance that they could escape and do the same thing again.

"For every six prisoners executed since the reinstatement of the US death penalty, one innocent person was condemned to die and later exonerated. How many equally blameless but less fortunate prisoners still await execution - or have already gone to their deaths - may never be known.

There is a widespread public perception that the lengthy appeals process which many US death sentences are subject to will somehow eliminate all risk of error. This confidence is completely unwarranted, since the purpose of post-conviction review is only to ensure that all rules and judicial safeguards were observed. Contrary to popular belief, US appeal courts are rarely allowed to reconsider the guilt or innocence of condemned prisoners.

Whatever the reasons for the erroneous conviction, it is an overwhelmingly difficult task to persuade the legal authorities that a mistake has been made. The presumption of innocence vanishes after conviction. As one prominent defence attorney has pointed out:

"Appellate courts have only one function, and that is to correct legal mistakes of a serious nature made by a judge at a lower level. Should a jury have erred by believing a lying witness, or by drawing an attractive but misleading inference, there is nothing to appeal."(9)

On numerous occasions, innocent death row inmates were spared only because of the tireless work of a few dedicated individuals willing to donate large amounts of their time, energy and private resources. For example, Verneal Jimerson and Dennis Williams were released from Illinois' death row in 1996. Their attorneys had worked on the case free of charge for six years; journalism students from Northwestern University had uncovered evidence of the men's innocence as part of a class project. Gary Nelson was released in 1991 after 12 years under sentence of death in Georgia; his attorneys completed more than $250,000 worth of their time and funds on his case, money which they knew they would not recover from the authorities."

I know theres a lot of that, and its pretty heavy reading, but I think its all relevant.

Against it. I like life.

it depends. if you do a really bad crime, you should live the rest of your life in prison. but if you are a killing machine, shooting towns and burning hotels and such, and that you are COMPLETELY uncontrolable, you should die.

new jersey:

it depends. if you do a really bad crime, you should live the rest of your life in prison. but if you are a killing machine, shooting towns and burning hotels and such, and that you are COMPLETELY uncontrolable, you should die.

If you're on a prison cell on your own, thats pretty effective control. Max security is extremely rarely breached. The only harm max security inmates tend to inflict is on themselves.

Some human beings truly are monsters. The ones that rape/kill/torture without remorse and show no signs of wanting to change do seem to be undeserving of life.

But I am hesitant about killing them. There of course is always the chance that the police have caught the wrong guy. There have been several cases where the convicted was given the death sentence and then later evidence proved their innocence.

If you can lock away the guilty without them being able to hurt other people then we don't need the death sentence.

But it takes so long with appeals and all that. They still have a chance to live even if they are sentenced to death.

I'm against it. Because its just as bad as what the person did to someone else in my opion. I really don't think anyone has the right to kill another person.

MadHatterMCR:

But it takes so long with appeals and all that. They still have a chance to live even if they are sentenced to death.

But evidence proving their innocence can take longer. Advances in technology, such as DNA testing, or evidence indicating someone else can take a long time. And while that is a long time that an innocent person is imprisoned, they can at least be released and reclaim their dignity.

i'm against it. it dosent mater what they did, killing them is still wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Pyhsiopaths should get it, because they wont feel terrible for it later. If they arent like that, then they should have to live with what they did.

Sippin Dat Emo Juice:

Pyhsiopaths should get it, because they wont feel terrible for it later. If they arent like that, then they should have to live with what they did.

Thats a mental illness, so they kind of can't help it... I get your point, as they will never feel remorse for their actions and so it is less of a punishment to them. But, at the same time, it is a mental illness, so their perception of life is altered. Thats not their fault. Its still terribly wrong and tragic, but in that circumstance the killer often doesn't understand that.

pyhsiopaths may not feel remorse but i think that spending the rest of there life locked up in prison will make them regret it. i think that spending that much time in jail would be worse then the death penilty.

Dark Angel 666:

pyhsiopaths may not feel remorse but i think that spending the rest of there life locked up in prison will make them regret it. i think that spending that much time in jail would be worse then the death penilty.

I agree - regret is regret. Whether they regret the harm they have done to others, or the fact that their actions have resulted in their imprisonment, regret is a punishment in itself.

I'm against it for the most part. Unless you're a threat to society, you should go to prison. I think our prisons have better security nowadays, and will almost always keep the prisoner locked up. But if it's a mass murderer or rapist or something, and really threatens society, then I think you should be executed.

I'm against it. I don't mean to bring relgion into the topic but God said thou shall not kill. The justice system should not lower themselves to he bar of a murderer.

What if it happened to me?
Well it almost did. But I didn't ask for the death pentality, instead I asked for life in prison. i believe strongly in karma. Prison will prepare the bastard for hell. Prison's only the beginning of the eternity in Hell thats instored for the criminal that tried to lay a hand on my family.

I see your point, but religion and government should be kept seperate, because not everyone believes the same thing.

However, I am against it for the most part, like I said.

When you think about it, some things are worse then death. a life sentance is much worst for someone then just ending their life. a life sentance means never being free. dying is freedom, isnt it?

Well, it depends what happens after death, I suppose.

Dying also gives the absolute assurance that another crime from the same person will never be commited.

Trisha[Bandit]:

Well, it depends what happens after death, I suppose.

Dying also gives the absolute assurance that another crime from the same person will never be commited.

that was what i first said. but someone else (cant remember exactly who) said that security nowadays is much harder to get through. and there are guards watching each cell. so they are very unlikely to get out.

new jersey:

that was what i first said. but someone else (cant remember exactly who) said that security nowadays is much harder to get through. and there are guards watching each cell. so they are very unlikely to get out.

Sadly, I can't imagine too many people that would want to pay those security guards when there are other options.