Do you support the death penalty?

There was a man in Texas in 1991 that was convicted of setting his house on fire, killing his three children. He was sentenced to death and was executed in 2004. It was later found that the fire was accidental and he was innocent and that a key witness lied about it. So an innocent man not only loses his whole family, he is then put to death for it. If the justice system was always right, I would support it. But many innocent people have been put to death. Therefore, I cannot support it.

Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed. Apr 28, 2014

Some folks just need killin. - Sling Blade.

The law needs to speed up the process of utilizing the death penalty. It should not take thirty years to determine innocence or guilt. It's really asinine to take so long.

I don't support it. I believe that you shouldn't be empowered or entitled to take a life. We are not able to reconstruct or to identically recreate a human being and we shouldn't have the power to decide these things. Also, you don't get anything out of that. People decide it's a good law just because they feel this is a retaliation towards the criminals, but nobody argues about what do we actually obtain out of this. You won't see one person saying that this law should remain because we get some benefits, because it's only the feeling of killing in the name of the justice that pushes you in this direction. But it's not enough to make a decision, you also need a strong rationale, some significant benefits to outweight the abhorrent act of killing someone and an ethical spirit to make these decisions. I've never seen an educated, stable and calm person saying we should kill people, but only people who have problems themselves.
Also as mentioned before, in case of a mistake, there's no way to repair this. The human nature is imperfect and will always make errors. Therefore, making irreversible decisions is incompatible with our nature, as we'll definitely make mistakes and we'll have to repair them.

I don't support it. I realize there are truly horrible people that have done absolutely despicable things but I still believe they should just be locked in a box. They'll pay for their crimes in the next life.

I don't support it. I actually was in a debate class, and got this exact topic. My main reason was the same one lonewolf1253 mentioned. If so many innocents also die, it's not worth it.

'Death, it stalks us all'...

Shakespeare

I support it.
They're just people, we keep making more all the time.

The death penalty does absolutely nothing to deter criminals, countries with the death penalty have no less crime than countries without it, in fact it usually has more crime. The death penalty plain doesn't work.

every american taxpayer support the killing of the convicted when they file taxes. But lets say god exists. then if you are a christian the dude Christ was being crucified one day . and low that day of days so be it on either side of jesus were two men to be executed that very day. and they said unto the lord , you are the one they call Jesus king of the jews are you not? and jesus said that is what they say. and so they both pleaded with Jesus to use his super Jesus powers to free them. Nay jesus was a republican and saith to them are you not guilty ? today you shall die but one of you shall not perish. so i say unto thee if you cant do the time dont do the crime.

In my mind it's close, but I'm against it. Too many witnesses lie under stress and vengeance of death. I do concede that the death penalty gives healthy closure to victim's families. But if Charles Manson torture artists were to get euthanized like a pet, the penalty would not be harsh enough.

Not only is the US prison system a big money maker, there are moral/ethical loopholes to the death penalty.
Why is it ok to take the life of a person who comitted manslaughter? At what point does society not value the life of domeone else?

Little Bill Daggett:
You just shot an unarmed man.

Bill Munny:
He should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.

I think the law should be looked at more closely. For example - there's plenty of ways to NOT execute the wrong person, but there's too many ways real murderers walk freely. A longer list than those who were put to death while innocent.
Today we have DNA, cameras everywhere, science to back up any case. They can get it right, but they choose not to.

I'm all for destroying the life of someone who killed multiple people, a child or pretty much anyone in a horrific way. Until you're the victim's loved one or it's someone close to you we can say we don't support it all we'd like.

Not wholesale.
Not on circumstantial evidence.
But, these cops that shoot unarmed usually black men.
These mass shooters or attempt to.
Like that nut case that shot up the theatre.
There's no reason for them to continue to take up food, water, or oxygen any longer.