Would you support instant executions upon sentencing for murder?

[Luna Tick]

The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?

 

[AmericanWoman76]

I lost count of how many times a person has been convicted of murder, and then years late, new evidence proved the convicted person was innocent. I can't for the life of me, imagine why anyone would want to kill that many innocent people.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?

There have been far, far too many reversals on death row when extra evidence comes out later. Being sentenced to death is not necessarily the end. There are still appeals.

 

[Serenity]

No i would not.

Occasionally there is a conviction of an innocent man. That is bad enough, but if they are sent to jail, they can at least be freed and given restitution. Once they are executed, there is no way to make that right. It's irreversable.

 

[Your Star]

No i would not.

Occasionally there is a conviction of an innocent man. That is bad enough, but if they are sent to jail, they can at least be freed and given restitution. Once they are executed, there is no way to make that right. It's irreversable.

This is why I don't support the death penalty at all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That makes as much sense as retrying that person until a guilty verdict is finally reached, because you know they did it or they would not have been accused.

We have an appeals process for a good reason.

 

[molten_dragon]

No, definitely not, for the same reasons everyone else has already posted.

 

[Rainman05]

For one, i don't support the death penalty and I think its a primitive and stupid thing to have.

Secondly, if you must have a death penalty, I would prefer that the death row be 10-20 years long by default.

 

[Mathematician]

The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?

It depends on the justice system and the expected value of accuracy. If 1 in 1,000,000 conviction is wrongful then I'd support the immediate executution of them. Too many people expect the justice system to be perfect when, in most aspects, it's not an exact science. With the system as it is now, more than one additional innocent person is going to be killed on average by 999,999 murderers. Many disagree, but I prefer the government take 1 innocent life by mistake than let criminals take 1,000 intentionally.

Criminals like James Holmes don't even deserve a trial. If a mass murderer is caught in the act, a criminal trial is a waste of time, money and effort on a piece of scum. He deserves to suck on the end of a double barrel shotgun as the trigger is pulled. :blastem:

 

[ChezC3]

The State has no right to take a life, not in its own name, and surely not in mine.

 

[Helix]

The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?

absolutely not. they **** up and convict the wrong person too often.

 

[ecofarm]

Ok, guys, get on the bus. We're goin' back to the dark ages!

Toot toot! Next stop, the inquisition!

 

[LowDown]

The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?

There have been so many false convictions leading to the death penalty that I'm convinced that the death penalty should be entirely abolished. The State should not have that much power over the individual considering how often the state screws it up.

 

[GottaGo]

No, not immediate execution.

I would, however, reduce the amount of time for appeals.

 

[TheNextEra]

With the system as it is now, more than one additional innocent person is going to be killed on average by 999,999 murderers. Many disagree, but I prefer the government take 1 innocent life by mistake than let criminals take 1,000 intentionally.

What is the difference between sending a man to life without parole and the death penalty as far as innocent life goes? Nothing. The difference is, if the state screwed up it could still try and right the wrong if the person is in jail, however, if they are dead, there is nothing the state can do about it but say "Oops our bad".

Maybe you would like to be that innocent life that gets snuffed due to a bad judge or jury, I would not.

 

[DVSentinel]

While I wouldn't support immediate execution. I would change the whole process. Make it cost less and reduce the number/time of appeals. Also, it should be done by public hanging, not lethal injection hidden away somewhere.

 

[Serenity]

Also, it should be done by public hanging, not lethal injection hidden away somewhere.

Like over in Iran, public executions, where you see people hanging from a large crane or a high place in front of crowds...Thousands of people watching as if it were a sporting match, shouting and cheering like savages. Great idea, bring the wife and kids along to have a look too...

 

[jamesrage]

The way it is now, a person who gets convicted of murder and sentenced to death spends years on death row going through numerous appeals at cost to the state. What if instead we had the gallows, the electric chair, a firing squad, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection chamber standing by for sentencing? If the murderer is sentenced to death, he or she is immediately taken out for execution. Would you support this policy?

I say maybe.It should depend on the strength of the evidence. The weaker the evidence the more appeals you get.If they got you on video killing people then after a guilty verdict they should take you out back and put a bullet in your head, no last meal no visitation or anything like that.

 

[Andalublue]

Like over in Iran, public executions, where you see people hanging from a large crane or a high place in front of crowds...Thousands of people watching as if it were a sporting match, shouting and cheering like savages. Great idea, bring the wife and kids along to have a look too...

Given the barbarity of state-inflicted murder, I don't think making it public pushes it over any moral threshold. It's the killing that's wrong, not the making it public. In fact, I reckon if executions were made public, the death penalty would be scrapped altogether before very long; in nations where the public get to decide anything, that is.

It's generally carried out in private as the authorities do not want the public to have the opportunity to witness its barbarism.

 

[radcen]

This is why I don't support the death penalty at all.

In theory, I still support the idea of the death penalty. In theory.

Theory and real-life practical application do not mesh, however, so like you I now no longer support the death penalty at all.

 

[GottaGo]

While I wouldn't support immediate execution. I would change the whole process. Make it cost less and reduce the number/time of appeals. Also, it should be done by public hanging, not lethal injection hidden away somewhere.

I don't feel it should be made public. It's sad enough that I feel it's necessary to have the death penalty, we don't need to feed the public any more horror than they already get from video games, TV and the garbage from Hollywood.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Many disagree, but I prefer the government take 1 innocent life by mistake than let criminals take 1,000 intentionally.

You are plainly no mathematician if you think that bit of rubbish is the pertinent equation.

 

[Henrin]

I don't support the death penalty and I definitely do not support just killing them on the spot either.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

No, not immediate execution. I would, however, reduce the amount of time for appeals.

So you favor plans to expand and streamline the judiciary than. That's where all the delays originate, you know. The deadlines that actually apply within the appeals process itself are often too short and inflexible to allow for any consideration so trivial as that of justice.

 

[Henrin]

Like over in Iran, public executions, where you see people hanging from a large crane or a high place in front of crowds...Thousands of people watching as if it were a sporting match, shouting and cheering like savages. Great idea, bring the wife and kids along to have a look too...

You can still watch in the US, so all that is different is the amount of viewers and the location.