MATS University

MATS Law School

Project on

DEATH PENALTY

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BYMR. SACHIN SHARMA Abeer Mansingh Mahapatra (Asst. Prof.) II Sem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We, hereby, want you to know that we thank our college MATS LAW SCHOOL for providing us with intellectual and co-operative faculty for Legal method (Mr. sachin sharma) who allotted us the project topic: DEATH PENALTY and gave us the opportunity to research on the topic and gain knowledge and command over it.we would also like to thank our Director sir Dr. G.P. Tripathi for providing very informative, full of knowledge and great variety of books in the college library, at the same time we would like to thank the librarian Mr. Anil Dewangan to allow us to the refer the books and spend ample of time in the library. DEATH PENALTY on which proved to be a boon for us and our project helped us a lot in understanding the basics of the topic.Next, we convey our sincere thanks and gratitude to my friends and family for rendering constructive and valuable suggestions and comments that have helped a lot in improving the quality and content of the project and also helped us for completing the project in limited time frame.

Thank YouAbeer Mansingh Mahapatra II SEM

DECLARATION

We are here to present project work entitled Capital Punishment submitted to the MATS University is the original work done by us under the guidance of Mr. Sachin Sharma, MATS Law School, Gullu, Arang, and this project has not performed the basis for the award of any Degree or diploma and similar project if any. Its for our personal interest and knowledge.

Introduction5

Importance of death penalty6-9

Advantages10

Disadvantages10-11

Right to life12-13

Death penalty: moral or immoral14-19

In favour of death penalty19-23

Conclusion24

Table of contents

Death penaltyIndian penal code provide for death penalty on the conviction of the accused for the offence of murder and for a few offence which impinge upon the sovereignty of the state. The death penalty is executed in the form of hanging the accused through gallows in India. The execution of death penalty may be by electric chair, injecting lethal drugs, firing squad or gas chamber. Still early the death of the culprit was about by what was the known as gallstone by axe. What is now prevalent in India is hanging which is found to be pain less and quick.The arguments against death penalty are that it is no punishment beca4use it puts an end to life and the punishment is irretrievable. It is describe as inhuman because of death offence the natural right of the humans to live and survive the argument that it might serve as a deterrent does not hold good for the one who suffers is not the same who is likely to face it further, The suffering the condemned person under goes in anticipation of death is too heart rending. That is why , the united nation general assembly by it resolution no.31-1961, dated 8 dec. 1977 recommended abolished death penalty execution of death penalty was carried out in 25 countries only during 2007 . In India, even through the death penalty was not abolished the court are directed to impose death penalty in rarest of rare cases only in cases where cruelty on the part of the convict is prove to be too graved . The courts are directed to state reasons as to why the death penalty is the only penalty that could be awarded.

The Value of death penaltyPutting people to death who have committed certain heinous acts of crime is a practice of ancient standing, but, in the United States, in the latter half of the Twentieth Century and into the Twenty-first Century, it has become a very controversial issue. Changing views on this difficult issue led the Supreme Court to abolish capital punishment in 1972 but later to uphold it in 1977, with certain conditions. Indeed, getting back capital punishment is the will of the people, according to Ernest Van Den Haag in "The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints," over 70 percent of the American populous support the death penalty in one form or another. As Van Den Haag triumphantly declared: "Show no mercy to the merciless." Yet many other voices have risen against it. Heated public debate centers on questions of public safety, sentencing equity, and the execution of innocents, among others issues. After reviewing the arguments of those opposed to capital punishment, it only strengthens my position that capital punishment must be implemented against those convicted of immoral and counter-productive acts against society.

First and foremost, the morality issue behind capital punishment is often in question. Many believers wonder what God would want. Taking a quick peruse through scriptures, one cannot help but note the following primary examples of why the death penalty must be implemented in certain cases of senseless violence.

Hand-in-hand with the scriptural morality is the benefits and values of capital punishment on our youths education. If youngsters are told from a young age that, if they commit any crime, they will be punished by death, the crime ratio will heavily decrease.

Another consideration is that killing a convicted criminal immediately will protect society greater in the future, while still costing society the life of the convicted. In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders. However, only 38 percent of all murder cases result in a death sentence, and of those, only one percent are actually executed. Economics and ecology Professor Isaac Ehrlich found similar results in a comprehensive statistical analysis he recently completed. During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researcher gathered murder statistics across the country. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University came up with these statistics; in 1960, there were 56 executions in the United States, and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred. So the number of murders grew as the number of execution shrank Spence said:

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed... In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire centur. Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person will come to the same conclusion I have. A valid conclusion is that life imprisonment, contrary to popular thought, is easily swayed to parole. In fact, according to "The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints," the "average time served on life sentence is six years." In all honesty, why should someone convicted by a jury of brutally murdering an innocent human being be allowed the opportunity to escape from prison? Why should that same individual, if not able to escape, be allowed parole in such a short period of time? The answer; the criminal should not be allowed either of the above opportunities. Furthermore, to refute those arguing for life imprisonment, who maintain that imprisonment makes criminals suffer more, I bring forth the following points: (1) life imprisonment may have improved conditions (e.g. free food, free shelter, free cable television) for the individuals and (2) prison facilities give the criminal too much freedom (e.g. weight room, cable television). Is the prison facility really supposed to be a spa and resort, or is it supposed to be a housing plant for vicious animals that kill our children?

And, of course, the death penalty stops dangerous criminals, and protects future generations, by (1) stopping the repetition of violent criminal acts, and (2) stopping criminals from handing down their criminal genes to the next generation.It is the only punishment that leaves no room for mistakes. Human beings are fallible; systems set up and run by human beings are bound to get it wrong some of the time. The death penalty system buries its worst mistakes.The death penalty doesn't deter people who would commit murder. They don't expect to be caught and don't think about what could happen if they were caught.

Because so much is at stake, the legal process of the death penalty costs a huge amount, much more than life in prison. Especially now, when states are running out of money, its a good time to ask whether the death penalty is worth keeping.We have at least one good alternative. Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is no picnic. Two advantages: -an innocent person serving life can be released from prison -life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Last of all, the United States and Japan are the only developed democracies that still have the death penalty. It puts us in the same company as China, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Kant explained why California's vote on Prop 34 will reverberate outside the state's borders. I want to expand on that very briefly. Over the years, I have found that many abolitionists genuinely do not understand the motivation of retentions Cries of "blood lust" are not always borne of bad will or the instinct to go ad hominem (although that happens quite a bit). Those on our side should try to understand that appeals to the dignity and value of human life, and fears about the prospect of executing an innocent person, are genuine in the hearts of those who do not agree with us. Any person of normal morality must take seriously the mind-bending gravity of the state's intentionally taking a human life. I understand these feelings, since at one point they made me a death penalty agnostic. But I am agnostic no more. Here's why.There is evil in this world. It is not to be mistaken with lack of opportunity, a poor education, or racism. If none of those things existed, there would still be evil. It stands its vigil at the border of civilized life, ready to make its foray if given the chance. Often it is concealed or disguised, which makes the fight against it so hard. But there are times when it shows its face. These are the child murders, the torture and sadism murders, the drawn out killing of helpless people for the fun of it.A society that has lost -- or, more correctly, has forfeited -- its right to set its face against horrors like that, to recognize some acts as beyond the pale of civilization, and to say no and mean it -- that society has fumbled away something of ineffable value, something hard won but easily lost. It has fumbled away that is, the moral strength without which evil will win. A democracy can afford, and will make, many errors. It cannot afford that one. The world can be a dark and cruel place to live in. Proof of this cruelty can be easily determined just by watching the news, or reading a newspaper of current events. It seems like every day a horrendous crime is committed: murder, kidnapping, and child molestation, just to name a few. These crimes are sufficient proof that there is enough evil in the world to make even the atheist pray for divine intervention. Amazingly, the human species has survived long enough to see another day. Perhaps the reason for our survival is sheer luck, but most of us would agree that luck has nothing to do with it. A more rational and logical answer for our survival may be linked to the rules that we have set to protect our lives. Without these rules, our world would be in a chaotic state of nature. Social contact theorist, Thomas Hobbes, believes that life in a state of nature is a "war of all against all," and in the state of nature life is "nasty, brutish, and short." He believed that rules and regulations were very impertinent to keeping order within our society (Waller, 2008). To an extent, I agree with Hobbes.

Advantages of death penaltyOne of the advantages of capital punishment is that it helps to limit crimes in society in two ways. First, the presence of death penalty as the highest form of punishment helps to limit crimes in society because people will be afraid to commit crimes especially those that are punishable by death penalty. This is unlike other countries where the highest form of punishment even to the most serious crimes is only lifetime imprisonment. Because people know that they will not get punished by death even if they get caught doing crimes, they remain motivated to do crimes. Once they get imprisoned for life, they will just figure out a way to escape through the help of their connections to influential people. Thus, the crime rates are just not getting reduced without the criminals being afraid of the punishment that they will have to face after getting caught. Capital punishment creates fear into the minds of people not to do any crimes or illegal activities. The amount of money spent on these trials will usually exceed the cost required to keep a person in prison for life. Disadvantages of Death Penalty

There are a couple of disadvantages regarding the death penalty. Probably the most important disadvantage is that it is possible that the person who is scheduled for execution is actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Some people may also feel it is wrong to take a life in such a manner. They usually feel this way because of their religious views. And it infringes the fundamental right of a person right to live. The biggest concern most people have about it is the risk that innocent people will be executed. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. Multiple forensic experts have since found that the arson "science" his conviction was based on was actually just junk science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people who were sentenced to death have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides and cant guarantee we wont execute innocent people. Obviously, if someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave.

Opposition of Death PenaltyOne of the primary reasons often given for opposing the death penalty is the possibility of a false conviction leading to the punishment of an innocent person. There have been cases over the years where evidence was disproved after an execution and many cases where conclusive evidence saved someone from execution at the last moment. Those who use this argument as a reason for opposing the death penalty believe that the chance for a mistake is too great, regardless of the relative effectiveness of the death penalty. Another reason some people give for opposing the death penalty is the cost. Most areas with death penalty laws also allow for many more appeals in capital punishment cases. Usually, criminals convicted in death penalty trials will gradually use up those appeals over years and years, and it can be very expensive for the state to continually go through the prosecutions. One of the most passionately-expressed reasons for opposing the death penalty is the concern that it may be biased. Even though most agree that modern laws are usually written without an intentional racial or financial bias, people with more money and social status are often able to get a better defense because they can afford more accomplished lawyers and pay for more impressive expert witnesses. Some people also believe that the racial composition of a jury can often give minorities a huge disadvantage. There are statistics regarding death penalty convictions which are more racially lopsided than some would think, and this is often used as strong evidence for opposing the death penalty. IMPORTANCE OF DEATH PENALTYI believe that it is very important that we are advocates for the death penalty, because it is a vital factor to keeping our society under order. The death penalty is the most severe form of punishment sentenced to a person who has been condemned by the law. Although it is unclear how far back this particular form of punishment has been practiced, the first recorded statistics of the death penalty in the United States dates back to the 1930s (Green, 2005). The controversy of whether the death penalty is an adequate form of punishment, or an unconstitutional one has been debated for centuries on end. History can verify the roller coaster decisions about the issues concerning the death penalty.

RIGHT TO LIFEAccording to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. As yet, there is no general prohibition against the death penalty in international law. In Swedens view, the death penalty is a deeply inhuman punishment that should be abolished.Article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. According to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to life is to be protected by law. The same Article prohibits states from arbitrarily depriving persons of their lives. Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms contains similar provisions on the right to life. The death penalty As yet, there is no general prohibition against the death penalty in international law. There are, however, a number of restrictions on its application and an emphatic call to work for the total abolition of the death penalty. The relevant standards are Article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to life and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also this on the right to life. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) have adopted safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. After an interval of ten years, the UN General Assembly Third Committee has, in the past few years, adopted resolutions that call upon all countries that still impose the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to totally abolishing the death penalty. States are also requested to report to the Secretary-General on how procedural safeguards for persons facing the death penalty are applied and to publish information on how the death penalty is applied. The resolutions have been presented by a group of countries from all parts of the world in which the EU has been proactive.

The issue of abolishing capital punishment still faces strong resistance among UN Member States and the resolutions have generated a number of hostile amendments and referendums. The number of unfavorable votes has declined however, while the number of co-sponsors has risen. The UN Commission on Human Rights (now replaced by UN Human Rights Council) has also adopted resolutions on the death penalty, most recently in 2005. The Council has subsequently also requested reports from the Secretary-General on application of the death penalty.

Juveniles and the death penalty: International law contains standards on application of the death penalty to minors. According to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. The same prohibition is stipulated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37. The Second Optional Protocol to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prescribes the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime. More than one-quarter of the UN Member States have acceded to this protocol. The situation is considerably more positive in Europe where almost all states have acceded to Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which prohibits the death penalty in peacetime. Protocol No. 13 to the Convention, adopted in 2002 at the initiative of Sweden, extends to include the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, even in wartime.The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong, Good or Bad?

Can we agree that if the death penalty is right then it is also good and if it is wrong, it is also bad? Of course, our first concern should be, what does the Bible teach about the state putting people to death? If we can ascertain that then it doesn't matter what philosophers, theologians, sociologists, criminologists and weeping, whining and whimpering liberals have to say about the subject. Genesis 9:6 clearly teaches that if a man sheds another person's blood, then his life will be taken by the government. Moses wrote, "whoso shredded man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made the man." When a person premeditatedly takes a life, he not only assaults society but attacks God since man was made in His image. For those who accept the Bible as binding on what we believe and practice, that should settle the issue. However, sincere people tell us that God also commanded us, "Thou shall not kill" so killing is wrong, but even astute Sunday school pupils know that that verse means, "Thou shall do no murder." And of course, we should not murder. If we could not kill, then we would be prohibited from killing a fly, beef, hog, etc. Nor could we kill in times of war or self defense, but that is not the issue. The issue is murder. We are experiencing about 20,000 killings each year in the US, but back before the states stopped putting killers to death, we "only" had 10,000 per year. So when the death penalty was stopped, in 1965, an additional 10,000 people were killed each year! We had been executing about 50 killers per year, but we stopped obeying God and stopped executing killers, and the result was 10,000 additional innocent people being killed each year. We only execute one killer for every 10,000 victims. That's why I say we are playing with the death penalty even though three-fourths of Americans want killers executed. It's not vengeance but justice. Some states are back to executing killers, but we are only playing with the death penalty. Execution is still not sure and very slow coming to the killers. A killer should know that after a fair, fast trial and one appeal, he goes to the chair! He should be in the grave before the first anniversary of his victim's death. Will the number of killings go down if each state really gets serious about executing the killers? I'm not sure, but that's not the issue. Killers deserve to die. The blood of innocent ones cries out for justice, and one thing is sure: the executed killer will never kill again. Often, the bleeding hearts tell us that a man must be insane to take a life so they put him in a mental hospital, but studies show that they are back on the streets in a few years. My position is, if they are truly insane, lock'em and leave'em. If sane, try'em and fry'em. But why not be humane and give him life in prison without possibility of parole? That still doesn't satisfy the scriptural demand that killers be killed nor does it speak to justice. It also puts prison guards in jeopardy. Since killers have nothing to lose, why not kill a guard during an escape attempt? Why not kill another prisoner during a fight? After all, the killers have nothing to lose. A life sentence can't be any longer. And why shouldn't thieves or kidnappers kill witnesses since they would not have a possible death sentence hanging over their heads?To hear many death penalty opponents talk, you would think that our only argument is the deterrent effect of the death penalty, but that is only an insignificant argument. They often point out that states without the death penalty have about the same number of killings as those that do execute killers. Of course, no one says that all killers are deterred. We know that no law deters everyone. We do not know how many thousands of men thought of taking a life then considered the death penalty and changed their minds.However, we do know that many criminals have not taken guns to their crime scene because they might be forced to kill someone and "get the chair." That is deterrence.While preaching near Toronto, Canada I talked with a man who was the youngest police chief in Ireland. He said, "Dr. Boys, you might be interested to know that we asked nineteen convicted killers if they would have killed if Ireland had the death penalty." He said, "All nineteen killers replied that they would not have killed if Ireland had a death penalty." Well, that's from the experts the killers themselves.During television talk shows I have been told many times that more poor people are executed than rich people so in fairness society should not execute people. I tell them more poor people are executed for murder because they do more murders! After all, there are more poor people out there than rich people. It is also a fact, that really does not need to be expressed, that rich people don't usually have the motives to kill. They have money, friends, homes, cars so they usually only kill during very emotional times.Of course, when a rich person kills another, he or she should get the death penalty as poor people do. Yes, rich people can afford better lawyers than poor people, but that is a fact of life that must be accepted.We are also told that more blacks get executed than whites; however the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not discriminate against blacks. Furthermore, a Stanford University study revealed that killers of whites (whether the killers are black or white) are more likely to get sentenced to death than killers of black people (whether the killers are black or white). But blacks who kill whites were less likely to receive death sentences than were whites who killed whites. Doesn't sound like discrimination to me unless maybe it is reverse discrimination! It is also interesting that women commit about 13% of the murders in the US yet less than 1% are executed. Maybe we can expect the screaming ladies at NOW to do something about this glaring inequality and injustice. Unless you look good in blue, don't hold your breath until the feminists carry signs demanding, "Execute more women," "More Women to the Chair," or "Put more women on death row." We had better demand that all people be treated like people whatever their color, gender or social status. The answer is to mete out punishment equally, not drop it altogether. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that a killer could expect only 1.8 years for murder in 1990. That's not justice. "But if we execute all the killers on death row in the various states, that would be a blood bath," says the innocent one. What do you think we have today? If there is going to be a blood bath, let it be the blood of convicted killers. If all 50 states were to executed all 3000 killers tomorrow morning at 6:00, it would sure send a message to other potential killers, wouldn't it? Authorities should also get the message that felons should be in prison, not on the streets. Streets are for people who obey and respect the law. Rebels belong in prison. But at least 30% of those arrested for violent crimes were on probation, parole or on bail. We must send officials a message: Keep violent criminals in prison! The US Justice Department's annual report revealed that two-thirds of those on death row had prior felony convictions and a full 10% of those killers had killed before! That 10% should not have been permitted to prey on innocent people because they should have been in prison. You've heard of three strikes and you're out, but it should be one strike and you're dead. No second chance for killers.Scores of people have told me on talk shows that an innocent person may be executed so we should do away with the death penalty. Well, since we live in an imperfect world, I'll concede the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. But without the death penalty, there will be the certainty of many more innocent killings. I have also heard the old canard that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to executed one innocent man. Now, I'm not advocating executing innocent people, and the thought is horrifying, but it is a silly statement. We are comparing one innocent man to the hundreds of other innocent people who will be killed if the hundred killers go free. Liberals are non-thinkers. Often the opponents of the death penalty affirm that many innocent people have been executed, so it should be done away with, but as usual, they are wrong. They usually quote the Stanford Law Review to prove their contention, but they didn't read the complete article. Professors Bedan and Radelet looked at 2300 capital crime convictions since 1900 and said they thought 25 men were wrongly executed. The professors "believed" the men were innocent, but they did not prove their case. They even listed such notorious cases such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Hauptmann, the Rosenbergs, etc., all cold-blooded killers and traitors whose cases were reviewed by various courts. The professors ended up saying, "...in none of the cases...can we point to any state action indicating the belief that the person executed was innocent." Evidently my opponents never read the full article. Yes, it could happen. It may have already happened, but it is unlikely with all the restrictions placed on the police, the emphasis on the rights of the accused, the jury trial, numerous appeals, and usually a long period on death row. Add to that the fact that most governors hand out pardons like campaign literature and are gutless "cry babies" who are super-sensitive to the bellowing and whining from leftist groups who have never seen a guilty killer they didn't like. We are told that it is state-sanctioned murder to carry out the death penalty, but if that is true is it state-sanctioned kidnapping to keep a person in prison? Are fines state thievery? It is incredible that opponents of the death penalty tell us that it perpetuates violence. They can't see the vast difference in a person who takes another person's life and the state doing so after a fair trial. Government is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Those are the two functions of government, yet our states are failing at both. It is almost always true that those people who oppose the death penalty for convicted killers (and I think that kidnappers, rapists and traitors should get death as they did 50 years ago) almost always are loud proponents of abortion! Let's see now: they don't want vicious killers to be killed, but they do want innocent, unborn babies to be butchered! I don't think I understand that kind of thinking. I have asked my opponents if I have a right to defend myself if a person is trying to kill me, and most of them agreed that it was acceptable. I then ask them, "If it is morally and legally right for me to defend myself even killing my attacker before I am killed, why is it wrong for the state to kill him after he has killed me?" They are strangely quiet. Often, in desperation, my death penalty opponents remind me that most civilized nations have banned the death penalty as cruel and inhumane. I usually pause for a few seconds and say, "So?" When European nations were ruled by tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc., we didn't emulate them by looking for a home grown dictator, so why follow them in their folly now by abolishing a reasonable and scriptural tool for the sake of society? European nations are also collecting the fire arms and opening their borders to almost anyone. Should we follow them in that direction? I think not. We are told that we should forgive the killer, but I reminded them that no killer has asked for my forgiveness. Besides he didn't take the life of one of my relatives so I don't have the right to forgive him. During a talk show I debated forgiveness and mercy as it related to the Susan Smith case the mother who drowned her two little boys. I had just demanded a death sentence for her, but the judge I was debating asked, "But what about mercy, Dr. Boys?" I replied, "Mercy you get from God; from the courts you expect justice." He said, "But the clergymen in her small town have all asked for mercy in her behalf." I said, "Her two children would liked to have seen some mercy from her, but instead they were pushed into a lake to drown. Besides, preachers asking for mercy is not an argument since most preachers pull on panty hose each morning and wear lace on their shorts." The host said, "What did you say?" I then repeated it, and he said, "I thought that's what you said. We members of society must demand of our legislators that crime not pay. That message must resonate to every city and country town that killers will not be pampered and made heroes in the media. Killers will be executed and after all, that can facilitate the best kind of rehabilitation. If a man knows he is going to die in 30 days, while the ACLU, PAW, NAACP and other radical groups whine, weep and carry candles for him, then maybe he will experience the ultimate in rehabilitation and turn to Christ for genuine salvation. State officials had better get the message that we must feel safe in our homes, cars, and the streets, because if we perceive that authorities can not or will not impose upon offenders what they deserve, then seeds are sown for anarchy, vigilante justice and lynch law. When that happens, we are all losers.

Do you support the death penalty?

YES WE SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY. I do not think we should reward murderers by keeping them alive in air conditioned prisons where they are fed every day. If they are worthless to society they should get out. I think that the death penalty should only be given out to those who are definitely guilty and do agree that it has been given out to people that may not have been proven 100% guilty and that is wrong as mistakes can be made. But if someone is beyond a doubt guilty they should be given the death sentence instead of life in prison. I do not want my taxes going to keeping a murderer alive. I would rather have my tax money go to killing those murderers. And it shouldn't take 20 years either. We need to get rid of lethal injection, unless they killed their victims in a humane way, and bring back shootings or hangings; they are quicker, and cheaper. I understand that we want our criminals to be as comfortable as possible during their punishment but. Why do we want them to even be comfortable? I have gone a long time without killing anyone and it hasn't been very hard! If they take away someone else's right to life, then they are themselves giving up their right to life.

You shouldnt kill anybodyI support the death penalty, family and friends don't deserve to lose a family member because someone killed them for no reason. If they take a person life, they should have one. Yes they will suffer in prison but they might kill another human being in the cells. We need to stop them before they kill more.Capital Punishment is okay.If a man has taken the life of another man then he deserves death. Some people just do not deserve to live after they have done dangerous and crazy things. The golden rule is that you should treat others as you would what to be treated. Thus meaning if you murder someone you deserve death as well.If you kill you should feel their pain and the pain of those suffered because of you. The Death Penalty Is Good for the Environmentrespecting the value of human lifePublic safety DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Justice is better served. More Humane than other Forms of Punishment Removal of a Threat to Society Retribution Prevents recidivismAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the right way.A rapist raped and beat 3 women, and was set to serve up to 25 years in prison, but due to "good behavior" he gets out in 6 and a half years. Then within 5 months he strikes again, twice, and now he set to serve another 35 years, he needed the death penalty.Capital punishment for child & elder murderers.I support capital punishment for those who willfully murder children and the elderly. There's just no place on Earth for monsters like that as long as they're guilty, and I'm sure a majority of Americans would agree! Children and the elderly are defenseless against murder therefore the penalty needs to fit the crime, and states that don't have it should reinstate it for these murders, and states that are considering abolition should retain it for these murders!Dzhokhar- Cure him, Question him, Kill himIf there was any doubt that we need the death penalty before the Boston Marathon, they should be little doubt now. Dzhokhar should be treated so he can questioned, he then should then receive a fair trial, and if found guilty, he should be swiftly, (and preferably painfully) executed. I take no pleasure in seeing a 19 year old executed, but there is no doubt that justice demands it. Luckily the Federal Government has a death penalty, because the liberals in Massachusetts do not. I'm for the death penalty, only for economic reasons. If we put everyone on life in prison (no parole), they would be full and overcrowded. They already are. Some prisoners may prefer the death penalty to living in a overcrowded hell hole. We would be overwhelmed by the taxes as citizens. If a prisoner had to chose life or death then maybe.Dangerous criminals should not have the possibility of escape.Every year, there are thousands of criminals that escape from prison all around the nation. Although this does not seem like a sufficient amount of people, think about what one person can achieve in such a short amount of time. Viva Leroy Nash was first imprisoned in 1930 at the age of 15 for armed robbery, where he escaped from prison. In 1947 at 32 years old, he was sentenced to prison again where he served 25 years for shooting a Connecticut police officer. But after spending only 25 years in the cells, Nash got out only to murder a postal carrier. After receiving life in prison in 1977, he escaped from a prison work crew in 1982, where he soon after went into a coin shop in Phoenix, Arizona and shot an employee dead. Two innocent lives could have been prevented from being taken had Nash been sentenced to a state prison, with receiving the highest punishment of all: the death penalty. Therefore, the death penalty should most definitely stay as the law of punishment for California; the nation cannot afford to house the most dangerous criminals with a chance of them escaping. Law of karma Serial killers and major criminals do not have any respect for human life and deserve to die. If this was enacted there would more justice and the families of the victims would have their honour respected. But no, justice means giving 20 to 60 years prison time and then they are out with the right to live life with anonymity. Ridiculous! Yes I do support it.I support the death penalty because I believe in an eye for an eye. Why should someone who kills an innocent or rapes a child be allowed to live? Why should citizens pay taxes to keep the scummiest of scumbags alive? Some people deserve to die. Not only that, but I also believe that death by injection is crap. Somebody who is on death row has done horrible things to be put there so they should simply be shot or hanged. It shouldn't take 10 years for someone on death row to be killed. It should be done in prison cells after the person has been sentenced.Yes, if there is beyond reasonable doubt that a person committed a heinous crime then there is no reason for them to enjoy life. There is no reason to provide food, shelter, health care, and safety to a person who has taken the life of another. We owe it to the victims of heinous crimes and to deter further horrific crimes from occurring.Conclusion Punishment is not justified by any good results, but simply by the criminal's guilt. Criminals must pay for their crimes; otherwise an injustice has occurred. Furthermore, the punishment must fit the crime. Juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting an-other good, either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society, but must in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. It is better that one man should die than that the whole people should perish. For if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world.

17