Amnesty: U.S. ranks 5th on global execution scale

The United States seems deeply divided on the issue.

The segment of the population that seems to be shafted when it comes to capital punishment are mostly socioecononomically disadvantaged. If you don't have proper legal representation (whether innocent/guilty) your life can be ruined.

Anyone who uses the death penalty to punish someone should be punished with the death penalty themselves. Killing begets more killing.

Eliminate the death penalty. It's the moral thing to do and, in the end, it saves taxpayer money because you don't have to go through all of the lengthy appeals processes.

The death penalty is not justice. It's revenge.

Serrano; The cost for keeping inmates on Death Row is 3 to 4 times more expensive than them serving a life snetnece in the general prison population.

Could you please pay for all the convicted murderers' food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.? Thanks.

Oh dear, convicted murderers are a reality in all countries, but the civilised ones refuse to bring back the death penalty because of cost issues (and anyway, it's cheaper to keep them in prisons for life). Typical American to see everything through cost and money and ignore human rights.

The eighth amendment to your constitution talks about cruel and unusual punishment. For most of the people and countries opposing the death penalty, DP is considered a cruel and unusual punishment.

An eye for an eye equals revenge. It is one of the lowest human emotion in my own personal belief.

It's not about you personally, but you did say that you'd like to argue the point. I just thought you'd want me to pick up the gauntlet and argue. I was mistaken, I guess.

I can walk down the street of my hometown, and of my adoptive country without fear of being robbed, mugged, molested, raped, beaten up. And the last person that was put to death using the death penalty in my country was in 1962, so we are doing well without it.

Actually, I am on my way to the park to exercise for about an hour and a half, at 11:30 at night and I am pretty sure I am not going to get in trouble.

We'll talk again soon, I am sure.

Cheers.

The death penalty should be abolished. It's just common sense.

Add that to the number of innocent foreignersall over the world that die at the hands of the US and we have the worlds' most international killing nation-the USA!

When discussing human life, is it too much to ask people to have the class not to bring up tax money?

As if far more of your precious tax money were not being thrown down the drain all the time anyway.

The death penalty saves taxpayers money.

This is a common misconception that a little reading usually helps alleviate. Everything that is needed for a regular trial is also needed for a death penalty case except that you'll need more pre-trial time, more experts, double the lawyers as well, and two trials, one for guilt and one for punishment. Of course, after that, you have the appeals...

So, yes, it is more expensive.

China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq,

There you go. Anybody that wants more killing now knows where their brothers are. Don't waste your breath whining. Just go to any one of their embassies, espouse your brotherly love for their values, and apply for residency. Why wait, when you could live amongst people who share your values in mere months?

Tizalleyman, you are looking at this from a one-sided perspective (Financial burden to society) when most of the opponents of the death penalty look at it from several others (Morality, lack of effectiveness as a deterrent, the possible mistakes that can't be undone, its constitutionality and so on) .

Even when conceding my point, you still have to argue about life in prison and its cost to society. Where will you stop? What will satisfy you?

@ oginome - I love people like you who are so concerned about the "human rights" of convicted murderers. What about the rights of innocent people, including infants and children, whose lives were ended by them? Let's see your concern when it's your mother or baby that's killed.

"Backward America"? - Doesn't Japan still use the death penalty? The guilty aren't told until that morning that they will be dying. "Good morning sir, please enjoy your breakfast. By the way, your hanging is scheduled for 10 AM"

@ oginome - I love people like you who are so concerned about the "human rights" of convicted murderers. What about the rights of innocent people, including infants and children, whose lives were ended by them? Let's see your concern when it's your mother or baby that's killed.

Where did I say I wasn't concerned for the victims? At what point did I state I wanted convicted murderers to walk free? Black and white thinking again. We punish these murderers by putting them in prison for life, not by killing them, which lowers us to the same level. If any friend or family member I knew was killed, I'd probably want to get revenge, but thank God the bereaved don't get to make the decisions, that's what the courts are there for.

"Backward America"? - Doesn't Japan still use the death penalty? The guilty aren't told until that morning that they will be dying. "Good morning sir, please enjoy your breakfast. By the way, your hanging is scheduled for 10 AM"

Japan doesn't get off the hook either. But Japan executed no one in 2011, unlike America where 43 people were killed.

"At what point did I state I wanted convicted murderers to walk free?" - at what point did I say or imply that? You are good at embellishing to make yourself look good. The least you could do is rant about what I said, not the words you put into my mouth.

"thank God the bereaved don't get to make the decisions, that's what the courts are there for" - exactly! Once a person is convicted by the courts, they should get the punishment the courts prescribe. Sometimes that includes the death penalty.

"Where did I say I wasn't concerned for the victims?" - when did I say or imply this? See my previous comment about embellishing.

"At what point did I state I wanted convicted murderers to walk free?" - at what point did I say or imply that? You are good at embellishing to make yourself look good. The least you could do is rant about what I said, not the words you put into my mouth.

No, you implied that by being against the death penalty, I was favouring the rights of criminals over that of the bereaved. 'What about the bereaved?' As if my anti-death penalty stance interferes witht their own rights. My response was perfectly proportionate, not embellished. Human rights apply to all people, whether convicted murderer or victim's family. We punish people for the heinous crimes they commit by putting them in jail for life, NOT by murdering them in return. Barbaric.

"thank God the bereaved don't get to make the decisions, that's what the courts are there for" - exactly! Once a person is convicted by the courts, they should get the punishment the courts prescribe. Sometimes that includes the death penalty.

Yes, and a civilised country has courts which don't apply the death penalty.

"Where did I say I wasn't concerned for the victims?" - when did I say or imply this? See my previous comment about embellishing.

Read my previous posts properly. You said 'what about the victims?' as if I wasn't concerned for them. This is what we call IMPLYING. You really don't get what it is - implying is not the same as overtly stating.

Anyone who uses the death penalty to punish someone should be punished with the death penalty themselves. Killing begets more killing.

Isn't that the same logic people who favor capital punishment use?

China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq,

There you go. Anybody that wants more killing now knows where their brothers are.

It's not so much capital punishment that's the problem with those countries cited, the greater problem is due process is not robust. Apprehension, trial and execution can happen within a month's time --that would appear rushed. That would be the issue.

Serrano; The cost for keeping inmates on Death Row is 3 to 4 times more expensive than them serving a life snetnece in the general prison population.

If economics were the main motivation, then due process would be the first thing to eliminate. Economics, in justice, cannot be the primary concern, tho it should be a concern, none the less. Still, don't think that's a good argument. Some people might be swayed by the economics. People should be swayed by prevailing morality. Is it unusual? If only a handful of countries consider capital punishment justice, arguably, it would appear to be unusual.

On the other hand, despite the gruesome nature of CP, is it more or less humane to submit someone to CP or to commit them to life imprisonment. It's probably a personal choice as to which one might consider more difficult, on a personal level. On the third hand, dragging out the process decades kind of double whammies it. They get near life imprisonment with the added capital punishment.

Darn right it shouldn't be! They should be alive and working to pay for their upkeep as well as their trials!

They already are! They're working on the state governors' mansions, hahaha.

@ oginome - I'm pretty sure I know what implying is, being a college graduate, retired military, former nurse, former federal agent, and current high school teacher. I bet I know your position on a woman's right to choose.

An eye for an eye equals revenge. It is one of the lowest human emotion in my own personal belief.

The State does not kill for revenge. It claims to do so as a matter of justice. You make the argument juvenile with analogies from the OT.

The death penalty should be opposed for the same reason death panels (however cleverly statists, collectivist proponents off nationalized health care will hide or disguise the existence of) should - the State has no right to take a life.

The death penalty should be opposed for the same reason death panels (however cleverly statists, collectivist proponents off nationalized health care will hide or disguise the existence of) should - the State has no right to take a life.

Nationalised health care doesn't involve the state deciding who gets the health care or not - it's available to everyone. The death panel 'argument' is nonsense. You're right that the State has no right to take a life, but comparing universal health care and the death penalty to imply they're one and the same is desperate, even for you.

I can walk down the street of my hometown, and of my adoptive country without fear of being robbed, mugged, molested, raped, beaten up. And the last person that was put to death using the death penalty in my country was in 1962, so we are doing well without it.

So where is this utopian country where crime no longer exists?

Tiz - It's nowhere.

So where is this utopian country where crime no longer exists?

The land of Not-Florida?

Eliminate the death penalty. It's the moral thing to do and, in the end, it saves taxpayer money because you don't have to go through all of the lengthy appeals processes.

How in the world does this save taxpayer money? Eliminating the death penalty does not remove the appeal process. If you are found guilty of a crime, you are afforded the appeals process to the full extent of the law whether you are facing a prison sentence or the death penalty.

The death penalty saves taxpayers money. It costs the American taxpayers approximately $45,000 per year to house a prisoner in the US on average...

I'll take that as a no.

"The cost for keeping inmates on Death Row is 3-4 times more expensive than them serving a life sentence in the general prison population"

It shouldn't be.

Add to what PeaceWarrior said.

Death-row is a separate wing with a much higher ratio of guards to prisoners, better security who are kept in the best of health via Food/Doctors(can't have them dying before their execution date).

Also each prisoner is housed in a single cell with no contact to other prisoners and 24/7 video surveillance. And that is for starters.

1yr on Death-row could keep the same person alive for nearly 10-yr in general population.

`It's Me; Another reason for the increased costs is the multiple appeals that the death row inmate has until the time the sentence is carried out. Probably some on the right (usually Christians), would prefer those sentenced to death to be taken round the back of the court straight after sentencing and shot in the head.

So, yes, it is more expensive.

After doing a little more homework, I will concede your point, PeaceWarrior. According to www.deathpenalty.org, it cost $90,000 more per year to keep someone on death row. But I would still argue that even with a life in prison sentence, you are still going to have years and years of appeal processes, so there will be legal costs. If that person is convicted of life in prison at 21 years old and lives to be 65, that is almost $2M in prison cost alone. The cost is too high.

I guess I just have a problem paying $45,000 per year for a convict. There are many working class Americans who would be very happy to be a productive member of society with a job making $45,000 per year...

And NinjaDave...I'm not even going to waste time replying to snide comments like yours...

It shouldn't be.

Darn right it shouldn't be! They should be alive and working to pay for their upkeep as well as their trials!

Dead men don't work a lick! And it costs money to bury them!

I guess I just have a problem paying $45,000 per year for a convict.

Then you should have a bigger problem with the fact that America also has one of the highest prison populations in the world. Part of the reason for that is that damn near everything is a crime in America these days. What was overlooked 30 years ago because it actually bothered no one is now a crime against morality or some such crap.

If you are so gosh darn worried about money, execution is the tip of the iceberg.

Tizalleyman, you are looking at this from a one-sided perspective (Financial burden to society) when most of the opponents of the death penalty look at it from several others (Morality, lack of effectiveness as a deterrent, the possible mistakes that can't be undone, its constitutionality and so on) .

My own personal belief is an eye for an eye. While many may not believe as I do, I believe that if you take a life, then you forfeit your own. My problem with capital punishment is your third point. I has been proven too many times that innocent people have ended up on death row. Whether it is due to a corrupt prosecutor or judge, lack of proper legal council, etc, it doesn't matter. If one innocent person is subject to death, then it doesn't work.

I'm not aware of any clause of the Constitution that says you should not die for your crimes. I know the penalty for treason has always been death, even in our founding father's day. I suppose it's a matter of interpretation, but I'd be happy to hear your viewpoint where it says you are allowed to murder/rape/etc and still be allowed to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Even when conceding my point, you still have to argue about life in prison and its cost to society. Where will you stop? What will satisfy you?

Since when did this become about me? We put people in prison because they can no longer be trusted to follow the rules of a society or because they pose a threat to others. I don't know what else you expect to hear. I suppose we will no longer need prison when we live in a Utopian society where you can walk down the street without fear of being robbed, mugged, molested, raped, beaten up, etc, etc, etc...

"is it too much to ask people to have the class not to bring up tax money?"

Is it too much to ask you to pay for the murderers' food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc?

"Backward America"

Could you please pay for all the convicted murderers' food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.? Thanks.

Way too many mistakes. Let's empty the prisons and start fresh.

Backward America.

Since when has Europe been right? On any issue. The only problem the USA has with the death penalty is the way it is applied. Too lightly.

Putting them to sleep like the way you take down an unwanted dog? F that!

Burn them alive or feed them to sharks. Big great white tearing the rapist in half. That's justice!