I know this has been sort of done to death (no pun intended here) but I saw this new article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4409857.stm and it states that more Americans opposed the death penalty than supported it IF the choice was Life Sentence without parole. I've done it as a poll so we don't have to get into a slanging match on this (although, that's probably what'll happen *sigh*).

If the Death Penalty was replaced with Life Imprisonment without parole would you still want to keep the Death Penalty?

No.  And no again even if it wasn't.  I don't support capital punishment.  Period.

If the Death Penalty was replaced with Life Imprisonment without parole would you still want to keep the Death Penalty?

No. And no again even if it wasn't. I don't support capital punishment. Period.


I feel the same.

I feel the same.

Good man!
:)

No.  The older I get the more I dislike the death penalty.  That being said, I have always thought life without parole was a better punishment.  Let them live with what they did.

I know I am going against the crowd here, but I voted yes, some people-even with life without parole find a way to escape.

Down here we don't have the death penalty-if we did maybe more people would be alive.

One particular person was in jail for murder, he faked an illness and was taken to the hospital. He escaped guards but using a homemade knife on them. While on the loose he went after alot of people and killed them - including a priest.

I'm opposed to the death penalty all the way, so a definite no for me.

I said Yes.  I'm not a fan of the death penalty but sometimes it is the best choice.  Like Whitewolf said, it can save lives in a few cases, but also it is just more efficient in some cases. 

But it should only be done to psychopaths who have minimal hope of changing for the better.  Generally , though, I'd pick life.  But in the case of murder it has to be LIFE, not 10 years.  But the option should be left open.

i think the death penalty should only be used against crimes that are so unspeakable that it would be classified as a crime against humanity. serial killers, spree killers and even heads of state who wage genocidal war.

I am opposed to the death penalty, period.

i think the death penalty should only be used against crimes that are so unspeakable that it would be classified as a crime against humanity. serial killers, spree killers and even heads of state who wage genocidal war.


Megalomaniacs and terrorists only is a standard I sometimes feel should be the case too.  Death penalty is too fickle for anyone else, perhaps.

I know this has been sort of done to death (no pun intended here) but I saw this new article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4409857.stm and it states that more Americans opposed the death penalty than supported it IF the choice was Life Sentence without parole. I've done it as a poll so we don't have to get into a slanging match on this (although, that's probably what'll happen *sigh*).


I don't believe the BBC was one cotton-picking second.  An Opinions Dynamics poll done when Scott Peterson got the death penalty showed that generally two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty (I'm going to have to do a lot of googling to find that poll.)

The fact that the death penalty fell somewhat in 2004 means nothing.  All it means is it will most likely rise again this year.  Here in Georgia we have already executed two different people and it's only early April, when in 2004 we only did one that entire year.

Remember, the US Supreme Court banned the death penalty for people under 18 by only a 5-4 vote, and USA Today says that all nine members support the death penalty, even Ginsberg.  Now then, the reason they banned it was because of a "national conscience" against the death penalty, stating that only 19 of the 38 states that allow the death penalty allow it for people under 18.  Also 12 states have no death penalty period (though Wisconsin looks like it may legalize it again.)  But there is no "national conscience" against the death penalty in America, because 38 states allow it, which under the US Supreme Court's logic shows that there is a "national conscience" for the death penalty.

The wording of that BBC article tells me only one thing: wishful thinking.

i think the death penalty should only be used against crimes that are so unspeakable that it would be classified as a crime against humanity. serial killers, spree killers and even heads of state who wage genocidal war.


So basically Osama Bin Laden or Grand Theft Auto's Carl Johnson?  ;D

Jeez GW your vision for your ideal world is truly medieval - string em up, screw having a trial even, bring out the hanging judge, death death death kill kill kill. Proof positive that one mans heaven is another man's hell. And yeah who needs the BBC when you've got the impartiality of the Fox Network.

I said no...even though my son was murdered. I also agree with Dagny...let them rot in a cell. Only thing is, some don't. They get internet, Cable and more things. IF they are sentenced to life without parole then they should be in 20 hour lockdown like Blaine's murderer is. No special BS >:(

I said no...even though my son was murdered. I also agree with Dagny...let them rot in a cell. Only thing is, some don't. They get internet, Cable and more things. IF they are sentenced to life without parole then they should be in 20 hour lockdown like Blaine's murderer is. No special BS >:(


I'd have to agree. That way they don't take away privileges from law abiding citizens and they have a chance of dying a dignified death.  The only time I support death penalty is for terrorists, megalomaniacs, and sociopaths like Scott Peterson who will most likely never have a change of heart.

I said no.  I have never supported the death penalty.  There have been too many cases of wrongful imprisonment for various reasons.  I do believe that life should mean life and that for these prisoners there should be no privileges.  I support the re-education of other criminals so that, hopefully, they don't reoffend.

Jeez GW your vision for your ideal world is truly medieval - string em up, screw having a trial even, bring out the hanging judge, death death death kill kill kill. Proof positive that one mans heaven is another man's hell. And yeah who needs the BBC when you've got the impartiality of the Fox Network.

He doesn't "believe the BBC was one cotton picking second."  And they know a lot about cotton picking down in Georgia.  Just how long a cotton picking second is, I do not know.
:D

Jeez GW your vision for your ideal world is truly medieval - string em up, screw having a trial even, bring out the hanging judge, death death death kill kill kill. Proof positive that one mans heaven is another man's hell. And yeah who needs the BBC when you've got the impartiality of the Fox Network.


I think you got my all wrong.  First off who said anything about no trail?  Now see I'm for the death penalty for special cases only, and I mean I want evidence.  I think now that Scott Peterson shouldn't have gotten the death penalty because of lack of real proof.  For me, the death penalty is for 1st degree murder or treason, and ONLY if it can be 100% proven with stuff like confessions of guilt, eyewitnesses, DNA.  I mean proof beyond any rational doubt.  I'm not the kind to give the death penalty to everyone for everything.

And comparing China and America's death penalty policies is absurd (right BBC?)