redblueamerica.com

The Death penalty was created and is still used to punish those who reject society and who have no respect for Life of others.

It was never created for some of the uses that is being applied to today. However, it is a necessary form of punishment for some.

It is more unusually cruel to punish people for life in prison than to just go ahead and kill them.

That may seem out of place, but when you talk to those who have been in prison and those who are there for life, they all say that its a life of hell. Many of those who are in for life, do most of the hard violence or conduct murder in prison because they have nothing to lose. They see it as another nothing. If they are in for life and they get another term of life, then what was gained in the court ruling? Nothing! The person who did the deed got something from it and the person who ordered the hit got something for it, but there was no justice.

It is my opinion that all those who are serving life, should be put to death. Why conduct torcher and other humiliations on them.

All that happens with these people is that they become more violent in prison because of how the prisons are run.

So there should never be a life in prison term. Either put them to death or make it possible for them to get out. People with hope to get out of prison have the ability to change. Wether or not that change is for the rest of their life, is uncertain.

But the death penalty was created for people who have no respect for human life! We should not waste 25 years in the course of putting that person to death.

I agree that people convicted should get an appeal or several appeals. But those appeals should not take 25 years.

According to several judges they say it only takes about 3 weeks to review the cause for flaws and to listen to arguments. Thus what is the delay in these cases? There is a reason why the law and the constitution says that a trial should be conducted in a speedy manner. That does not mean too fast but then the delays that are given are too excessive in most cases.

But I understand both sides of the argument. Sometimes the death penalty is applied in the wrong way and other times its not applied to someone who needs it.

But we should take away life in prison. Either put those people to death or allow them to get out!

What those who are for life in prison is pushing for extremely more cruel punishment of those who have to serve out their time in prison.

You have no idea what rape does to a innocent child do you? It doesn't ever go away but stays with them for life even with therapy. As far as I'm concerned anyone who harms a child in any way should be eligible for the death sentence! It is murder - the murder of innocence, the murder of childhood.

I have a great idea guys! How about we make the punish for all crime the death penalty, then there won't be any crime of any kind!

What right do we have to take away another's life? And if you're really going for a fair system, reserve the death penalty solely for murderers- they're the ones that kill people.

It's not a question of weather capital crime deserves the death penalty. It's a question of weather, American society deserves the death penalty. Until, we can be sure there is nobody wrongly convicted of a crime, we should not impose irreversible penalties. The facts are clear. There are people in our jails, that are innocent of the crimes, for which they were sentenced. We have prosecutors, police officials, and politicians that more interested in generating "positive" conviction metrics, than they are in justice.

The previous poster says unborn children are not children but a fetus.

Yet, I have two nieces who were born and live who were just over 24 weeks.

Its not just a choice of words anymore. Medical breakthoughs have changed what is and is not.

Just as you can not kill a person by denying them air, you can not kill a baby by the same means.

In other words, if the baby has a heart beat and brainwaves that fits the current definition of life by the Supreme Court. You can not disconnect the life support without ajudication of the persons rights.

Thus why Rowe V Wade is out of touch and too broad in today's world. Rowe V Wade is like the Dred Scott case of 1860. Times change and the views and morality of the country changes.

I personally believe that there is times for abortion. But I also believe that time is extremely limited and to a very narrow set of issues.

In other words, just based on the supreme court's decision about what is allowed for defining life limits abortion to before week 4 of the pregancy. To put it plainly, in week 4 a baby has brianwaves and the heart begins to beat. Thus at that time, the baby is alive according to the supreme court.

Thus to kill after week 4 is to murder a child. Just as you can not kill a person who can not breath on their own or eat on their own because they are attached to life support, this is the same issue for a baby.

An abortion is murder by mutilation where the baby can feel pain, has awareness and has a heart beat. A sad truth that those who promote abortion do not even want to consider.

it actually very easy to understand, yes it seems like a paradox however it is not. Also, I am a supporter of the Death Penalty and against abortion. These are my reasons:

1) Abortion is an act which kills an INNOCENT, i.e. killing a person that has done no wrong

2) Death Penalty kills a wrongdoer/criminal, for 95% of the time because of murder.

-The Harm Principle supports this. When you violate the rights of another the governemnt has the right to violate your rights

-8th Amendment is not violated because the Death Penalty is done with due process of law

-Killing is the worst act possible, so therefore, the worst punishment, with legal guidelines, must be administered. If it isn't and another human is victimized then the courts have not upheld their duty.

Abortion is killing an Innocent
Death Penalty is killing a killer

Come on, Alice. Obviously nobody is talking about "18-year-old men who get caught having sex with their 16-year-old girlfriends." A "right-wing ploy to regulate sex" or "blanket mandates" might be a product of your overactive imagination, but not remotely related to the question at hand. Honestly. I would encourage you to actually take some time to read the documents we linked to on the topic.

Some states allow people to be put to death at 16 years old...16! When they have full potential to be rehabilitated. This has to end.

are we counting 18 year old men who get caught having sex with their 16 year old girlfriends?? Because... I see that as a pretty unreasonable standard anyway - but enacting the death penalty for something like that is just outright ridiculous. This sounds like another right wing ploy to regulate sex again.

now if you want to talk about a reasonable case where some 40 year old man is raping an 8 year old thats different but I think terms should be outlined as such that it would be impossible to really create a blanket mandate that would allow for a inaccuracies.

similarly, none of the things we have in place now are serving as a deterant to child rapists - what makes us think that this will?

and finally, I personally consider all death penalty cases to be cruel and unusual.