QuestionGuy
Do you believe in the Death Penalty for convicted murderers beyond reasonable doubt; why or why not?
Do you believe in the Death Penalty for convicted murderers beyond reasonable doubt; why or why not?
31 Comments
Leave a ReplyLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There have been a lot of innocent people convicted “beyond reasonable doubt” so my answer is no
Personally, life in prison would be much worse than death.
Nope because the innocence project has shown that it’s not ever really beyond the reasonable doubt.
Maybe if they have a confession and video. But otherwise process is too flawed
Nah. Momma always told me two wrongs don’t make a right. We can keep everyone safe and no more people have to die (well, at least because of this one specific dipshit).
Difficult question.
Take bundy for example, dude deserved to die but the bloodlust of the public caused victims of the families to be unable to get answers. Bundy was more than willing to trade information for whereabouts of the victims he was sober enough to remember for more time alive, he did it once before. But that bloodlust cost those families that and whilst he deserved to die the families didn’t deserve that.
The death penalty is a messy topic as it closes that opportunity to get information forever no matter what, even when you have no doubt these people deserve to die, do the families deserve to have unburried children and family members?
All this to say sometimes people don’t deserve to keep living but the death penalty is deeper than that so.. no.
Anyone who has seen The Shawshank Redemption will be able to see both points of view.
On the one hand, we have Andy – convicted of murder, imprisoned for life. Was it beyond all reasonable doubt? Probably not, there just wasn’t enough evidence that he *wasn’t* guilty, and circumstantial evidence that he was. He’d probably live.
Look at Red though. By the end of the film he truly is rehabilitated, and who didn’t want him to have a happy ending? But he definitely did commit murder, he’s one of the few inmates at Shawshank who openly admits his guilt. Under this new system, he’d have the death penalty.
It’s obviously a very, *very* complex issue, but the bottom line is that it risks killing innocent people, and it removes any hope at rehabilitation.
Given the number of people who have had their convictions overturned in light of new evidence, I’d say our standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is far from full proof. So no.
Beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t a high enough standard for state sanctioned human sacrifice.
No, I don’t believe to government has a right to say who lives and who dies in the populace
I do not think the government should have the power to execute its citizens.
No, as I do not believe the State should ever have the power to kill its citizens, regardless of the reason.
No.
The death penalty makes sense when the resource drain of indefinite detention is significant. We aren’t a frontier town where an extra mouth to feed could potentially be the difference between everyone surviving the winter or not. We don’t live at a time when it takes 10 agricultural workers to produce enough food and materials to support an extra 1-2 people so even a handful of non-productive prisoners requires an entire village to support.
We aren’t so resource-starved that the death penalty should be considered as an alternative to indefinite detention. Killing someone should never be for *convenience.* Even if they did commit crimes that are antithetical to civilization.
beyond reasonable doubt isn’t enough anymore.
There have been too many murder cases now where the charged were later found to be innocent.
I know it sounds crazy, but I believe in the death penalty for politicians and the elite. you have to choose to be in those positions, and when you abuse it to enrich yourself and hurt the populace, you should be held to the highest standard. I want the ruling class to be afraid to abuse power.
Sometimes it feels like it would be appropriate. Some crimes are so horrific and some people incapable of remorse. But I still don’t support it. The risk of a single person being incorrectly executed is greater than zero and that is catastrophic
The death penalty is immoral. It is ineffective. It is expensive and government flaws can cause that the wrong person got executed.
It’s a side issue but those whose guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt shouldn’t be convicted at all.
Nah
I always believe that the worst POSs can be rehabilitated and be a better person, if not, then rotting in jail is defo better than death penalty. people expect death penalty when they do shit like that, it’s a lot like a deathwish imo, but no one wants to rot in prison, no?
The death penalty doesn’t give anyone closure and there will always be other murderers on the street. You give one the death penalty and another one will be born.
If someone murdered my loved one, I’d get more satisfaction with them behind bars than the state taking their life. Life without parole is painfully long behind bars and that would bring me much joy.
So once the govt is legally allowed to kill you for a crime…
It’s not so much that I have a ton of sympathy for like a mass shooter who did it on tape. But like there are periods in history where lots and lots and lots of citizens started getting killed for all sorts of “crimes” (think Nazis, French revolution, witches)….
I don’t want to say it’s a slippery slope. Except we’ve proven time and time again that it is.
Death is too easy of an out. Work them for the rest of their lives if it’s without a doubt
Yes , and should also apply to repeat offenders, nonces , and the assholes that drive dangerously on public roads .
The public shouldn’t have to pay to keep them alive.
Yes because murderers do not stop murdering in prison. They kill other inmates for clout, guards and escape and kill innocent people.
I think it should be up to the convicted murderer to decide whether or not they want to die
The problem is there have been too many documented cases now of evidence being tampered with, bias within juries and judges and plain old mistaken identity. Add in undiagnosed mental health issues and there really is no way to be sure.
No.
Many people on death row have been exonerated after they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is much more expensive to keep someone in jail for the rest of their life than execute them and even if it weren’t we shouldn’t be killing people because it’s easier or cheaper.
It is not a deterrent. It is simply revenge.
It is wrong to kill people that are no danger to anyone.
For me, it would depend on the victim and how heinous the murder was. Pedophile? Yep. Man who killed the pedophile who raped his child? Absolutely not.
We’re honestly a little weird about death in the US.
You can’t practice assisted suicide, but you are allowed to watch someone shit themselves and lose all other bodily abilities as they excruciatingly painfully succumb to cancer.
You can’t put someone to death in most states, but you can lock them away in a building for life where we all know damn well they stand no chance at rehabilitation and will hate every day, suffer abuse at the hands of everyone, and do so at the taxpayers’ expense.
So my opinion is that we should scrap our whole prison system. If a criminal can be rehabilitated, rehabilitate them with a better form of incarceration over a shorter period. If they can’t, and it’s obvious they did the deed (basically any mass shooter), put them down. It’ll all cost way less and maybe knock down our embarrassing reincarceration rate.
yeah, then chop em up and feed them to the other prisoners in death row
Dogs get put down. These degenerate F’s deserve no less.
No, I don’t believe in capital punishment for any crime or felon.