Poll

It has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent when comparing different US states.

It has been found that, where the death penalty is in place, criminals are more likely to kill their victim rather than risk leaving a witness.

So the death penalty ups the ante for the criminal, meaning it actually puts the public at greater risk.

And regarding the cost of keeping someone in normal prison as compared to keeping them on death row and then killing them; it is actually more expensive to kill someone than to keep them alive in prison. (Especially in th US, where the prisons are used as slave labour to produce goods, such as 90% of all military gear for the US army. If prisoners refuse to work for ridiculous pay - less than $1 an hour - then they get put in solitary confinement. And this is not just the violent criminals; it is all prisoners.)

I think the issue here is society, not the prisoners. The fact is that prison is the new type of slavery in the US, with big business making a mint out of it (like everything else).

You don't have to take my word for it. The facts are out there if ou want to look them up.

Most comments in favor of the death penalty are rooted in emotions. Emotions takes away our rational thinking, which in my experience isn't the best state of mind to decide anything that serious.

Civilized countries???

Lets for just a minute, forget the courtroom, the lawyers, the death row;
Targeted killing/assassination, call it what you will, supposedly for political/counter terrorism purposes;
How many innocent civilians have been killed this way?
How many innocent civilians die in Yemen with weapons manufactured in USA/UK?
How many innocent people killed by drone strikes or SF operations teams on "seek and kill" operations.
Do we count this as "justified killing"?
Its still the same as the death penalty! In US operations the President has to sign off on these kind of things,
UK the PM signs off on it!
It is still a "death penalty" decision, its simply not made in a court room!
What about the "government assassinations" that DO get carried out, no matter how much they state "deniability"?
IT HAPPENS whether we want to believe it or not!!!
Is that justified, is that on a par with the prisoner in death row?

If someone killed my family I would want the death penalty..or do it myself , I don't believe in keeping them in jail for 40 years so the tax payers are footing there bill , do I know if this the right thing.."no " but nether do I know if its not.. but I know how I would feel for the love ones I have .. no mercy. Only my personal view.

Gloria wrote: "If someone killed my family I would want the death penalty..or do it myself , I don't believe in keeping them in jail for 40 years so the tax payers are footing there bill , do I know if this the right thing.."no " but nether do I know if its not.. but I know how I would feel for the love ones I have .. no mercy. Only my personal view. ..."

Bingo.

John wrote: "Civilized countries???

Lets for just a minute, forget the courtroom, the lawyers, the death row;
Targeted killing/assassination, call it what you will, supposedly for political/counter terrorism p..."

Yeah, that term civilized countries is a joke, I agree.

James wrote: "Gloria wrote: "If someone killed my family I would want the death penalty..or do it myself , I don't believe in keeping them in jail for 40 years so the tax payers are footing there bill , do I kno..."

Thats two of us then!!!

James wrote: "John wrote: "Civilized countries???

Lets for just a minute, forget the courtroom, the lawyers, the death row;
Targeted killing/assassination, call it what you will, supposedly for political/counte..."

Yes it is a joke James.

Brutality knows no religion or nationality!
The general concept of Buddhism is that it is a gentle/calm religion, tell that to the Rohingya Muslims in Burma.

time.com/.../burma-myanmar-rohingya-b...

What are the so called "civilized countries" doing about it??
NOTHING!!!

I marked unsure for one & only reason. a lot of the times death penalty which seems the right choice; as it should be could possibly haunt innocent people. who may be under the attack of superpowers or control-freaks. This may lead to death of people by unfair judgment!! As for Paedophile; there i believe death penalty must be the only choice after careful examination, judgment and agreement of parents.

There are certain scenarios in today's world; shooting of children in schools, attacking a religion and multiple hand picked cases that are almost always referred to the psychiatrist and later on ignored from punishment. Who knows the master plan and the man behind all this is doing it deliberately and what if ignorance can give further motivation to others as well? Death penalty here again seems partial choice.

I wouldn't agree to death penalty; nor I can ignore the fact that it is right in certain cases. It is just not possible to come up with the absolute answer.

Asmi wrote: "I feel death penalty is like punishing a person for a particular state of mind in some cases.. And many its major psychological disorder.."

I'm pretty sure there are strict "death penalty qualification rules" ...not every murderer qualifies for the death penalty...especially the 'insane' ...except sociopaths and psychopaths (and the likes).

Why keep such callous people in prison for life? How about 'preventive care'? It is not unheard of a murderer manipulating the minds of others to commit crimes on their behalf...are those future murders not worth saving?

Also, i say we take natural selection into our own hands and get rid of those with murderous tendencies ;) ...I feel like there's a movie about this...to stop crime before it happens...

Is it not better for one 'evil' individual to perish than multiple innocent ones? Anders Breivik bombed people in Oslo before he went out on the island....he shows no remorse....what are the odds he will do it again? In such cases, how certain are we that we have the right murderer? .....i guess we could always blame it on MKUltra (and the likes) and let murderes go free as there really is never enough evidence to prove a state of emotional control.

Evidence to prove capital punishment does not work?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/is...

Unsure vote for me. I don't agree with the death penalty 99.9% of the time. I do think though that if a grieving father kills his daughters murderer that isn't a crime. I know, you'd have to be sure that they were guilty.

But, I have experienced a bit of this rage myself. A long time ago when my two grown sons were 2 and 3 yrs old, a "trusted" male babysitter molested them both for months before I figured it out. Let me tell you that as the boys started coming out with horrific details the rage that grew in me was uncontrollable. Of course it was mixed with guilt, ie: "How could I have not known?" (He had threatened my life if the boys told. And actually, they didn't tell until two weeks after I had fired him cause I recognized something was not right even though I didn't know what.) Anyways, because the boys were so young NOTHING HAPPENED to this predator. I had no idea NY laws sucked so bad but you can't testify against your abuser until you are 12. The boys each told the same horrific stories separately to police and councilors but because I had never witnessed anything, and there was no physical evidence, (he made sure of that) they couldn't even force him to be questioned!
Those boys are now 23 and 24 and wonderful human beings but when I have the rare discussions with them about what should've, could've been done, I often believe I could have killed this man myself if I could've have found him. (He moved quickly out of state.) I don't know.... if I really could've taken his life. But when I feel that rush of "It was my job to protect them and this man took that from me." I think maybe I could have. My oldest son says someday he will find and confront him and ... not kill him but not let him walk away Scott free either. My 23 year old, thankfully, doesn't remember most of it and just wants to get on with life.

Now, outside of a grieving family member somehow getting closure from taking a life? I don't believe in the death penalty. It is too difficult to be sure that they are guilty.

This is a complicated question. It is obvious that our legal system is flawed. The recent use of DNA testing on old cases, and the subsequent release of innocent people, some from death row, should make anyone take a serious look at the way the legal system is corrupted. The execution of innocent people has happened. However, if a case has incontrovertible forensic evidence and the crime is particularly heinous, or serial, I believe that the death penalty should be considered. The problem also lies with the ability of the prosecution to manipulate the law in their favor. This has repeatedly happened in false convictions where evidence is hidden from the defense or even purposely destroyed. Unfortunately, when man is involved there is always the chance for deceit.

Daniel wrote: "Also, by voting "unsure" one actually votes "no" at this point. Because a yes is a definite response. Same as a vegan is a vegetarian and an agnostic is an atheist but not the other way around. ..."

Don't agree with that at all, Daniel.
For one, many people who voted unsure have said they are leaning toward voting yes, or else open to the death penalty, but don't understand enough about the logistics.
So I think unsure is just that: unsure.

P.S. as per the original post in this post, I myself voted unsure at first, but as stated at the time I was leaning toward YES...Eventually I just changed my vote to YES as the poll went and as I thought about and researched the death penalty more.

James wrote: "P.S. as per the original post in this post, I myself voted unsure at first, but as stated at the time I was leaning toward YES...Eventually I just changed my vote to YES as the poll went and as I t..."

Deep down it's a YES but when you think of system which is corrupt and not enough justice is provided at certain areas of the world, we wouldn't want to lose innocent people being the main target and now as the world is; one shouldn't rely on govt.

DrVivacious wrote: "Deep down it's a YES but when you think of system which is corrupt and not enough justice is provided at certain areas of the world, we wouldn't want to lose innocent people being the main target and now as the world is; one shouldn't rely on govt. ..."

True but that argument of not relying on govt kinda goes both ways...Right now our govt's are giving the most pathetic sentences for hellish crimes, almost never keep prisoners for life even when they give life sentences, and they keep re-releasing repeat offenders...For example, some pedophiles have been convicted of harming dozens of children and keep getting re-released...

James wrote: "DrVivacious wrote: "Deep down it's a YES but when you think of system which is corrupt and not enough justice is provided at certain areas of the world, we wouldn't want to lose innocent people bei..."

They should make a law for PEDOPHILES- No mercy at all.. It sure is a YES when it comes to this point. Only for this I am like SURE and sane enough to say yes.

DrVivacious wrote: "They should make a law for PEDOPHILES- No mercy at all.. It sure is a YES when it comes to this point. Only for this I am like SURE and sane enough to say yes. ..."

But surely torturing and murdering innocent children is just as bad as molesting them?

Sounds to me like you're for the death penalty in extreme cases where there is no chance of innocence...

How about instead of spending money on keepimg those criminals in prison or killing them, we just recreate gladiator games....they can kill each other off and the city can earn money :)

Lisa wrote: "How about instead of spending money on keepimg those criminals in prison or killing them, we just recreate gladiator games....they can kill each other off and the city can earn money :)"

I actually think even the psychopaths would enjoy that, seen as how they lust for blood.

I'd rather hear the statistics for 'deterrent' in the 30s, 40s, and 50s when they used the electric chair rather than lethal injection.

James wrote: "DrVivacious wrote: "They should make a law for PEDOPHILES- No mercy at all.. It sure is a YES when it comes to this point. Only for this I am like SURE and sane enough to say yes. ..."

But surely ..." You just opened up a truly great point: I feel like anything that involves children, whether mental torture or molesting them. All of the things that they would have to live with it for their whole life; even worse is to know people who did all this to them exist and doing it to others. That's just aching I mean if I put myself in their position, I wouldn't want them re-released or doing it to others or even surviving in this planet.

It's remotely possible for some children to mentally survive as for many their life is already worse. So for such extreme cases yes basically anything that involves children > Death penalty.

You want to kill children who were abused, once they've grown up screwed up? That makes perfect sense.

Wordwizard wrote: "You want to kill children who were abused, once they've grown up screwed up? That makes perfect sense."

They take these actions as a result of government not protecting them. Death penalty would solve their aggression and certain programmes can really help them to see the bright side.

I agree with all you say DrVivacious.

Also, to make a more general reply to many of the comments from NO voters in this poll...
I would add that we need to be careful assuming too much. The pattern I'm seeing in the comments is people are assuming most or even all hardcore criminals were abused AND that is the reason for why they do it.

Yes, nobody can deny there is a cycle of violence and abuse worldwide, but at the same time there comes a point where every adult needs to be responsible or accountable for their actions. If you dig deep enough in people's pasts, you'd find a large percentage of the population would have an "excuse" for committing such heinous crimes under the broad definitions being implied in this poll. And yet, the vast majority of such adults who have endured such crimes against them in childhood do NOT commit crimes in adulthood.

I think we also need to factor in that a fairly big percentage of psychopaths do not have abuse in their background. I've seen many a true crime story where the criminal was a loved child who was a spoilt kid and grew up to be a hardcore crim.

Not saying I have the answers or all the statistics or any solutions or anything like. But what I am saying is there is a hell of a lot of guesswork in all this, even with the experts in their fields.

And while lawmakers, psychiatrists etc, keep guessing and keep experimenting on new rehabilitation methods, crime is as rampant as ever and more and more innocent people keep getting killed, raped or otherwise victimized.

I'm also hearing a lot about the rights of criminals, the compassion we need for criminals etc, etc.

But maybe our first consideration should be compassion for victims and victims' families? And also compassion for innocent people worldwide some of whom will be the future targets of these sub-species of humans.

I dunno guys, I'm at breaking point with the tiny minority of people who only care for themselves and are wrecking our chances at creating peace on Earth. That goes for politicians too.

If we look at the legal system politically, I think things often swing too far Left (aka Liberal) or too far Right (aka Conservative). Politically it seems humanity likes to react when something is wrong by swinging to the other extreme.

For example, few would deny the old capital punishment system was too far Right Wing. You'd get your hand chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread, you'd get 7 years in jail for some minor misdemeanour and you'd be hung for a fairly crime by modern standards.

However, things can go too far Left (ultra-liberal, too apologetic etc). I think when you really research how many criminals are reoffending, and how ineffective a lot of psychiatry and other "experimental treatments" are in treating criminals, you come to the conclusion things have gone too liberal. How many chances does each criminal deserve?? How much abuse can the mass public endure?

Our "justice system" is predicated upon the principle that it is better for 10 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be falsely convicted. The British found one innocent person's being executed sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty. There is no way that we can make sure that none who are not "clearly guilty" get the death penalty short of ending it.

No, there should be a lifetime of brutal punishment and the victim, if alive, should be allowed to see the criminal get punished.

The crime needs to be defined first.

Re civilized countries:

For the first time, the United States has officially slipped in the Economist Intelligence Unit's rankings of global democracy — from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" — putting us at the same level as countries like Singapore, Italy and India.

https://mic.com/articles/166629/the-u...

This strangely reminds me of the story "The bet" by Anton Chekhov.

Yamna wrote: "This strangely reminds me of the story "The bet" by Anton Chekhov."

What'd Chekhov say about it?

I'm unsure with this one - there is a myriad of situations that could classify someone as a person who could commit the "most heinous" of crimes. Yet, it depends on what those crimes were. If it was the person murdered someone who committed horrendous actions, then I'd say that the person shouldn't be penalized with death.

The death penalty isn't as black and white as many people want it to be.

Definitely unsure.

There are those who are wrongfully convicted.

There are those who happily commit evil, disgusting acts towards others.

There are those who are doped out on prescribed psychotropics, and when combined with other factors, they end up doing something terrible.

But they are all still people. It's tough deciding whether or not it is our choice to end their life. Ya know, the whole "don't sink to their level" bit.

I think this is a question of god...let's think about it this way..if god is omnipotent and good then he created all things to be good..a good god wouldn't create bad things..therefore people committing these crimes are doing gods work...they are ultimately all good in his eyes...if god let's this happen and these crimes are bad but are are gods will..then either god is not good and omnipotent and he is actually bad...or he doesn't exist...

Kenneth wrote: "I think this is a question of god...let's think about it this way..if god is omnipotent and good then he created all things to be good..a good god wouldn't create bad things..therefore people commi..."
ha

I know that God exists because of my personal, spiritual experiences, I have experienced myself as part of God, We have free will so can do what we like. It's not that all these things are necessarily good but we learn and develop from everything we do. Retaliating by killing people for their crimes is not anything the criminals learn from - we are merely repeating their crimes or committing even worse crimes.

Don't worry about "spiritual" guilt or ethical concerns, guys, for I will happily pull the lever for the electric chair myself on the worst of the worst criminals :)

Won't even spare them any thought, or have any emotion whatsoever, for before each execution I will simply study true crime photos of all their bloodied, mangled corpses they left behind, some of which will include tiny children. That'll reinforce in my mind I'll be doing the world a big favor.

Doesn't matter how New Agey one becomes, there comes a point with the worst serial killers where they have disrespected life to such a degree you know in your heart of hearts the right thing to do is wipe them off the face of the planet. It ain't just about potentially reducing crime in future, but more importantly it's about the need to rid ourselves of people who have taken that many lives and destroyed that many families and/or entire communities. Such individuals (if they can still be called that) just do not deserve to share the planet with the rest of us, even behind a jail cell. Period.

I once saw a Dennis Hopper movie about death row where one of the prison wardens was feeling reluctant to assist the planned execution. Hopper replied in what looked like an ad-libbed line: "Let's face it, were Jesus alive today he'd come down from the cross and blow this murderer's brains out".
Sounds a fair analogy to me.

Glad to see the YES vote is winning this poll.
It's gonna be a controversial result, but I think that shows the masses are completely fed up and don't agree with how apologetic and passive criminal sentencing has become.

I note also a number of UNSURE voters have specified they'd need to be absolutely sure the serial killer is guilty before agreeing to end that life.

That makes me think if I'd worded the poll something like the following even more people would have voted for the death penalty being available to judges in the most extreme instances:

Do you think there should be a death penalty for the most heinous crimes where there is no chance of being wrongly convicted?

We're human. Mistakes will be made. To adjust the question to reality, perhaps the question should be:
Do you think there should be a death penalty for the most heinous crimes even if it means accepting the occasional mistake?
That's not the reason I voted no, though. Rather, death is such a definite thing, that the death penalty just doesn't feel right.

As an atheist of non-Christian origin, it amazes me how Christians ignore what Jesus allegedly said for their own purposes. You know that if Jesus had existed, and were alive today, he'd do no such thing.

Wordwizard wrote: "As an atheist of non-Christian origin, it amazes me how Christians ignore what Jesus allegedly said for their own purposes. You know that if Jesus had existed, and were alive today, he'd do no such..."

Exactly, Wordwizard, if you're referring to James' comment about how Jesus would come down from the Cross and blow a murderer's brains out. That's completely against his teachings. James and others need to re-read their New Testament.

Iona wrote: "Exactly, Wordwizard, if you're referring to James' comment about how Jesus would come down from the Cross and blow a murderer's brains out. That's completely against his teachings. James and others need to re-read their New Testament. ..."

Hahahaha!
1. I'm not a Christian, guys.
2. The New Testament was compiled and edited and rewritten by ruthless, violent anti-Semitic authors (the Romans) three centuries after the Jewish Jesus Christ - highly unlikely to be reflective of the real Jesus according to Gnostic documents such as the Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls etc. Jesus' teachings in reality were more likely to be closer to Judaism and the Jewish texts do speak of killing when necessary and an "eye for an eye" type comments.
3. The analogy with Jesus coming down from the cross and blowing murderer's brains out was not literal...Meaning: according to the NT Jesus spoke about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, but Dennis Hopper's line of dialogue was making a point to say some things are so evil in reality anybody (even Christ) would want to wipe such murderers out if directly faced with it (as opposed to theorizing).
4. This polls nearly over. YES vote has won by the looks :)

Yet the country seems to be heading towards NO. Most of the country has already abolished the death penalty. Dennis Hopper was playing the fool to suggest that someone who is for radical nonviolence and forgiveness would change their mind if they saw X. Was he perhaps doing stand-up when he said that?

So releasing hardcore criminals back into society over and over and giving unrepentant criminals second third and fourth chances is a path of non-violence?
Hmmmmm...Not working yet then...

Try reading up on radical nonviolence before you shoot off.

Wordwizard wrote: "Try reading up on radical nonviolence before you shoot off."

Try being realistic about the damage violent criminals (usually reoffenders) do on society being you present more theories...

You want to kill others. I'm willing to die rather than kill others, and request that my killer not be killed.

Wordwizard wrote: "You want to kill others. I'm willing to die rather than kill others, and request that my killer not be killed."

If you're against violence and killing, and want to protect innocent people from harm, then you need to think about all the violence and killing psychopaths are doing daily in society. Many of them were re-released...and quite a few are even released after serving "Life" sentences which wouldn't happen if the Death Penalty was in place for the worst of the worst.

So while I support non-violence and peace movements, I also believe I am right that there are rare times when it is an act of self-defence to kill and it is not murder. An extreme example would be if the Allies had not killed millions of Nazis and Japanese in WW2, hundreds of millions more innocent people worldwide would have died. Fact. Apart from Hiroshima which was wrong and unnecessary, all those killings were an act of self-defence and were a good a example of what I call "spiritual killings" or "ethical killings"...

That may seem a totally unrelated example, unless it's the case that society is actually akin to a war zone in that its sociopaths versus the rest of us normal, community orientated people. I happen to believe there is a war being waged upon us by these destructive, anti-life "people" and I include not just criminals but also politicians and many bankers and quite a few warmongers in senior positions in each nation's military...

This poll is now complete.
Thanks to all who voted/commented.
It certainly was one of our most lively polls!

For anyone who missed out on this poll or has more to say on the issue, you can keep the discussion alive in the following discussion thread link:

Should there be a death penalty for the most heinous crimes? (Poll Result: More of you vote YES than NO!) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...