Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

[Fly]

Simple question, do you think the death penalty should be allowed by the federal government?

[FlakeyFool]

No

[IndyFan]

I'm against the death penalty, but this is a state issue. So I guess I vote yes.

[natepro]

I find myself increasingly dissatisfied with the number of things we leave up to the states. The taking of human life shouldn't be one of them. A life in Mississippi is no more valid than one in Minnesota.

[GA16Angels]

No. I have no qualms with it morally, it just costs too much. I would abolish it completely.

Also, I feel like death is an easy way out. If I was a criminal I would much rather be put to death than receive life imprisonment.

[Patsfan56]

The federal government shouldn't be in a position to feel entitled to "allow" it or not.

In a nation becoming more and more polarized, I would think we would come to appreciate the value of states having more of a role in determining these things for themselves, so as to allow peple to live in a place that reflects how they want to live. If people do not appreciate that critical need, I am of the sincere belief this nation won't last as it is now for another 50 years.

[steelcityroller]

It should be up to the states. If 90% of the people in Texas want the death penalty then they should be allowed to have it.... But that opens up a can of worms in where do you draw the line as to what the states can allow aside from the federal government.

[natepro]

The federal government shouldn't be in a position to feel entitled to "allow" it or not.

In a nation becoming more and more polarized, I would think we would come to appreciate the value of states having more of a role in determining these things for themselves, so as to allow peple to live in a place that reflects how they want to live. If people do not appreciate that critical need, I am of the sincere belief this nation won't last as it is now for another 50 years.

So.. why states?

I mean, outside of Constitutional reasons, we act like states are these collections of like-minded people, and they're just not.

I've lived in two places in Illinois: Rural southern IL near St. Louis, and Cook Co, near Chicago. Those two places are the most polar opposite two places I've lived, politically, until I moved to Georgia. So why are we acting like people can move to IL and live in a state that's just the way they want it to be? Unless they're going north, it's not going to happen. And so, you either have people abandoning basically everything south of Springfield, or you have a bunch of people living in a state that is being run contrary to how they think it should be, because it is almost entirely controlled by the northern 1/3rd or so of the state.

[Patsfan56]

So.. why states?

I mean, outside of Constitutional reasons, we act like states are these collections of like-minded people, and they're just not.

I've lived in two places in Illinois: Rural southern IL near St. Louis, and Cook Co, near Chicago. Those two places are the most polar opposite two places I've lived, politically, until I moved to Georgia. So why are we acting like people can move to IL and live in a state that's just the way they want it to be? Unless they're going north, it's not going to happen. And so, you either have people abandoning basically everything south of Springfield, or you have a bunch of people living in a state that is being run contrary to how they think it should be, because it is almost entirely controlled by the northern 1/3rd or so of the state.

Becasue states can more directly represent the needs and wishes of their constituents. People can vote via referendum (or however their particular state constitution establiishes the process) on issues that matter to them. States, by offering different and more direct access to have their governments reflect how they want to live, offere us a choice in how we want to live.

Federal law is complete in its nature. It seems people are far too free to let their own morality determine who others live in this country, be it from the left or right. To those people, I say go **** yourself. It is not your place. By states being free to determine these things for themseves, I am therefore free to decide what state I want to live in, and how. Sweeping federal regulations remove that flexibility that this country desperately needs as we grow further and further apart politically.

[dbroncos78087]

I can't get behind supporting it unless I feel a desire for some form or vengeance. That is all the death penalty is used for in our system. It doesn't provide healing or closure to the victim, just vengeance.

[steelcityroller]

So.. why states?

I mean, outside of Constitutional reasons, we act like states are these collections of like-minded people, and they're just not.

I've lived in two places in Illinois: Rural southern IL near St. Louis, and Cook Co, near Chicago. Those two places are the most polar opposite two places I've lived, politically, until I moved to Georgia. So why are we acting like people can move to IL and live in a state that's just the way they want it to be? Unless they're going north, it's not going to happen. And so, you either have people abandoning basically everything south of Springfield, or you have a bunch of people living in a state that is being run contrary to how they think it should be, because it is almost entirely controlled by the northern 1/3rd or so of the state.

You can say the same about any collection of people. You are seemingly never gonna be able to pass a rule with 100% agreement of all parties. But at least within a state you are much much more likely to get more agreement than places thousands of miles apart.

I can't get behind supporting it unless I feel a desire for some form or vengeance. That is all the death penalty is used for in our system. It doesn't provide healing or closure to the victim, just vengeance.

Under the current means then I agree.

But I think they are too politically correct in some situations. The death penalty in my opinion would be efficient if used to dispose of serial rapists, mass murderers etc. that are without a shadow of the doubt guilty of their crimes. Because there is no point of them living out their lives in a jail cell costing everybody else money. Because some of these guys get life sentences and run up court costs pleading over and over again for parole or various other things even after admitting to their crimes.

For the same reason there is no need to go about an expensive means of execution when you can simply put a bullet spike in the base of the brain the same as they do to animals at the slaughterhouses and quickly dispose of them with little costs. I'm sorry but if you are a known, convicted and especially admitted violent criminal such as the situations I stated above then I feel no need to show you any special treatment.

[dbroncos78087]

Under the current means then I agree.

But I think they are too politically correct in some situations. The death penalty in my opinion would be efficient if used to dispose of serial rapists, mass murderers etc. that are without a shadow of the doubt guilty of their crimes. Because there is no point of them living out their lives in a jail cell costing everybody else money. Because some of these guys get life sentences and run up court costs pleading over and over again for parole or various other things even after admitting to their crimes.

For the same reason there is no need to go about an expensive means of execution when you can simply put a bullet spike in the base of the brain the same as they do to animals at the slaughterhouses and quickly dispose of them with little costs. I'm sorry but if you are a known, convicted and especially admitted violent criminal such as the situations I stated above then I feel no need to show you any special treatment.

Under any system, the death penalty is nothing more than an attempt to use the law to exact vengeance. Its not about punishment and its not about deterrence; because those who commit the death penalty crimes have already been sentenced and will never see freedom again, punishment; they also don't fear the death penalty because as it turns out they tend to be crazier than the average person, deterrence. It just satisfies a basic instinct in us, the observers, that justice is being done.

[The Schmooze]

I've done a total 180 on my beliefs on the death penalty, mainly b/c I've weighed the positives vs the negatives.

As I see it, the negatives are it is more expensive(versus life in prison), is not a deterrent to others, and brings up many many questions of morality and government overreach.

The positives are that it may provide closures for the families, and satisfies peoples' thirst for vengeance against.

I don't support it, and hope one day the "pro life" and religious groups would get on board and oppose it with the liberal groups that already do...

[C-ross12]

I'm with all the states rights posters. Let the states decide. One size doesn't fit all. We live in a large country. People in Texas are differen't from people in Florida, which are differen't from people in California, which are differen't from people in New Hampsire and so on. It's the most fair way too let the individual live.

[Angry Norwegian]

Honestly not sure.