What are your views on the death penalty? Do you think that certain criminals should be put to death and others shouldn't? Do you think it is up to a jury to decide whether or not someone lives or dies because of their actions? Should it be made illegal to put someone to death because they killed someone? I would just like to know your overall thoughts about this subject. Thank you!Morgan MacFarlane (9:00)
18 comments:
to kill what?? inmates that have the death sentace; is what i got outta your picture. i would have to say not...beacause yah that person might have done something awful to end up on death row maybe even killed someone..but does that give anyone the right to punish that individual with death? that would mean you are no better than the person sittin on death row waiting for his turn in the chair or for their leathal injection...put em away..let em rot...no need to kill the killers...no reason to stoop down to their level.
april higgens Eng101~9am
This is one of those questions that I try to stay away from. I think there is no feasible way to govern a large group of people like the U.S. or even Illinois, so our system is already at fault. There are too many variables in this world. Having said that I will say that I don't think any one has the right to take a life, under almost all circumstances. But I definitly have that knee jerk, get the bad guy, reaction when I hear/see injustice.
Renee Hart
I think that it would be better for a person to rot away in a prison cell, but nowadays, prisons are like country clubs so that won't work. So I think that the death penalty is a good thing. It might help bring closure to family members of the victim, but honestly, people on deathrow may wait there until they die. I think i read that there are more people on deathrow than that will ever be put to death, so really, that system doesn't seem to work either. I don't really know what to think anymore. It all just seems to be a little off.
Dustin Piercy (9:00)
This is another topic i am indifferent about...I feel that an eye for eye but then you have the exocutioner...why should he have to kill another person just because the state or another person says to. There is the financial side i think i remember hearing that i spends as much money to kill someone and to keep them alive it cost just as much. so where is the benefit there? I would thin sitting in prision wasting your life should be sufficient punishment.
Kristin Knowles 9:00
Well, if the prisons were how they were supposed to be then I would think that just keeping them there would be suffient enough as killing them. Also, wouldn't we be doing the same as they did? They murder someone and now they are getting murdered. The only difference is one would be legal, the other not.
Elizabeth Kerns
I am an advocate of the death penalty. I strongly believe that someone who has committed a crime, such as killing someone else, should be put to death for what they have done. People describe the death penalty as "cruel and unusual punishment". The crimes that these killers committ are, most of the time, the worst way for someone to die. The pain that these murderers cause their victim and families is tremendous. That murderer should be killed for what they have done. I think that the most serious offeneders should be put to death. The offenders on top of the list would be murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Yes, I think that it should be up to a jury to decide if a man dies for the actions he committed. It kinda seems unfair for one mans fate to be up against 11 or 12 jury members but this is the way our country has developed. Some countries don't give you a chance at a trial by jury at all. If they hear a rumor about you killing someone they wont waste any time in killing you. I could almost say we are lucky we have the system we have today. Capital punishment is good for today's society. It helps deter criminals from committing terrible crimes and gets rid of all of the worthless people that have already committed these crimes.
Kirby Reifsteck (9:00)
I've thought about this a lot in the past couple weeks, but I still haven't come to any conclusion really. I'm struggling between both sides right now.
Side A - It doesn't seem right that if a person kills someone, that person gets treated the same way and is murdered in return. It almost seems like an easy way out, too. You don't have much time to ponder what you've done. Part of me thinks the person should have to pay in some way other than being killed. Maybe work it off for the rest of his/her life and X% of the proceeds go to the family. I know money can't replace the lost child/husband/wife/whoever...but that person should have to give something to that family and not just be killed.
Side B - Part of me is thinking it's right to do away with the person who is causing a threat to the people. Maybe they can do it in a more humane way though. Somewhere in Leviticus it says something along the lines of: -an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If a person kills someone, an individual has no right to kill that person, but the government does have that right.- Unfortunately, to make it confusing, somewhere in the New Testament it says to disregard some of the things in the Old Testament. So...I really have no idea where I stand with this yet, but I thought I'd throw out those ideas.
Megan Mercier (9:00)
I think the death penalty is a good and a bad thing. I think that there are certian implications where the death penalty is a very good sentence. I mean it is awful to do that to another human being, but depending on what they were charged with i think that it is altogether fair. Depending on the severity of their case should depend on the severity of their sentence.
Frankie Gaskill (9:00)
I think the death penalty depends upon the crime committed. I think if the crime is bad enough, the death penalty is totally okay. Why should someone deserve to stay alive who killed an innocent person or raped a teenage girl? It just doesn't make sense. However, it goes both ways. Sometimes people commit crimes, and recieve the death penalty when they shouldn't have. So, I guess it all comes down to the crime committed and the jury sentence, and that will determine the proper punishment.
Chelse Lindenbaum (9:00)
I do not believe in the death penalty. I think that God is the only one who should determine when it's your time to leave this world. If someone commited a crime that was bad enough to have the death penalty considered, they should not be able to get a shot in the arm so they can drift off into an eternal sleep. I think that is the easy way out and they don't deserve the easy way out. Criminals that make the decision to commit such heinous crimes should be in solitary confinement at a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives. We should not stoop to their level by commiting the same an act that got some of these people into the this position in the first place. position
This is a hard subject. I don't want to believe that we need to put people to death for their crimes, but our prisons are already overcrowded (some by more than 200% allowed population. We also already have the problem of all the money going to prisons that people would rather have go to public schools. With the jury question, I thought it was the jury who said guilty or not and the judge who decides the sentencing, whether imprisonment or the death sentence. Other than that, maybe the prisons would not be overcrowded if the sentencing on minor crimes was not so harsh. I don't know.
Bobbi (9:00)
Hmmm...well to begin with, I think that people who have committed murders should be killed themselves--they should firsthandedly see what they've made others go through. But, then again they should have to sit in prison and wait until their death because that would be a horrible thing to have to do. If only the prison conditions were worse, like how they should be, I would be all for them having to chill in prison. The death penalty shouldn't be for murders that were an accident. This is really a tough subject. It all just depends on all the facts about how they murdered the person--if it really is serious enough to make them face death. Because you can't honestly say that all murderers should be put to death--some were accidents.
Alyssa Surber (9:00)
I think that if a person committed a horrible crime that was so sever that the death penalty is considered, that they should be given that option. It's like they are getting out of their punishment by not having to deal with the thought of what they did anymore. If they did something awful they should have to sit in jail for the rest of their life and just think of how they have ruined so many people's lives and think about their actions. To most of them it probably wouldn't matter becasue they didn't care enough in the first place, but I still don't think they should be given the satisfaction of getting out of it. Prisons today are so crowded so I do see the reason for why we need to use the death penalty on the most severe criminals, but like someone else said, most people who are awaiting the death penalty end up dying in prison waiting for their time. Therefore I think that a new method should be considered.
Abby (9:00)
I believe in the death penalty for those who have killed others. If someone has taken another life, then his or her life should be taken. If someone is found guilty of first degree murder, the jury should automatically conclude with the death penalty. It should not become illegal.
Hannah Dodd (9:00)
This is a tough subject. My initial response is an immediate yes. I believe that people need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Seeing as how taking a human life is the highest of crimes, the highest form of punishment should be used. The only problem is that in many cases we will not truely know if the condemned person is guilty. Since the advent of DNA fingerprinting, hundreds of prisoners have been exonerated. The idea that we may be executing innocent men is a disturbing thought. I think that there should be a little more care put into sentencing a man to death. Perhaps if the murder was proved with indesputable DNA evidence. Condeming someone to death is a hard choice to make. I would hate to be the juror to decide that one. I think that if we just always keep in mind the basic tenents of our criminal justice system ( innocent until proven guilty, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt) we should be alright.
Scott Kimball (9:00)
I think that if you did a crime so horrible that you're on death row, then you should be executed, however, I would rather see people that murdered others, die a slow death. I don't know if it should be necessarily illegal to have the death penalty. But, I think in some cases it is definitely necessary.
Brittney (7:00)
I think the death penalty should be used in certain cases. For instance, if someone kills a child there should not be any more reason for that person to be on this earth. They are the devil with a human body and should be taken off this earth. And convicted killers who kill more than one person, they should get the death penalty because they obviously can't control themselves because they have some sort of sick impulses.If the jury job is to decide whether not someone dies and thats just how it is. I think its in the matter of the murder committed on if they should get the death penalty for killing someone. For example ifthe person kills out of self defense than no but if the person planned on killing someone and then tries to hide the body than they should automatically get the death penalty.
demaris winston(7:00)
I think the death penalty is very acceptable. I should be used in any murder cases as long as the murder was intentional. also some rape and molesting cases depending on how bad it is. Im not sure if life in prison is worse that death or not because I havnt experienced either one but why should americans waste their tax money on such criminals so they can live? Life in prison could be worse but i think they should just be given the dealth penalty and we should just move on and not pay for them to rot in prison.
Jimmy Gourdier (12:00 Class)
Post a Comment