except cases like Jan 6, the Civil War, the Business Plot, etc. I think the people who lead/masterminded those events should've been hanged.

To plan and carry out the killing of someone who has already been removed from society and can easily be kept slide is the epitome of cold-blooded murder.

but really it is always wrong

As a taxpayer, I don't approve of revenge murder in my name, even if it is "State Sanctioned" or the person is truly an irredeemable scumbag.

Self protection is one thing. Vengeance is another.

Haele

Do you mean the dissolution of corporations? Or do you mean the literal execution of officers of a company?

That's a corporate Death penalty I can get behind.

Haele

the entire term to research, consider and write/present prior to the end of the school year. I took it very seriously and portions of my piece were excerpted for the then-local newspaper that published both sides of the debate. Mine presented the anti-DP POV, focusing largely on two issues: 1) whether the government--any government had the right to kill its citizens-- the risks of such authority being extended beyond any possible rationale under a non-democratic change in government; and 2) the inability to prevent wrongly accused from being executed, no matter the precautions.

I've never wavered. Since then both issues that formed my argument against the DP have not only come to pass but have become clear beyond what I could have imagined at the time. In a word, TEXAS!

So many like to conflate opposition to the DP with believing all are able to be rehabilitated OR conversely that there are not some who are truly deserving of it. Neither is true for me. My reasons now are as they were highlighted in my treatise then. The act is singularly permanent and mistakes that arise can never be made right. But even more frightening is the thought of what we those in power can unleash who seek its terrorizing impacts to control more than those presumed guilty of murder.

...of our legal system.

I mean, there are criminals who made bad choices, and have had bad lives.

There is also premeditation, cold-blooded, planned, crime where at multiple points the culprit should have reconsidered his or her motives, morality, hatred, passion.

I don't like to think there are evil people. But there are. I don't think capital punishment should rely on evidence, or the testimony of one witness. It is hard for people to forgive hateful actions. Thus we have hate crime laws and classifications.

told our loved ones should we be murdered...no death penalty. We don't want that period.

...we are in the "Maintain" is mind baffling.

I'm against the death penalty in every circumstance. Economic wise, it costs more to put someone to death than just incarcerate them for life. And the idea of the state executing in the name of its citizens is horrible. Worse, innocent people have been executed and some who were guilty changed their lives and from their prison cell, enacted change so others would not follow the same path.

Sure some are irredeemable, but we should probably study them and their brains. Can't do that if they are six feet under.

However, I do not think our current legal system works as in too many mistakes, unequal legal representation, and unfair between jurisdictions and in general.

Do not have an answer but do have an idea.

Go old school and give those convicted of capital crimes one-way tickets to a secured island. Let those convicted of capital crimes build their own society and provide for themselves by farming and raising animals without technology. Abolish all "modern" technology including communication with outside World. Multiple "chip" the convicts. Insert spies to monitor. Monitor from outside with vigilance.

Living facilities would be built, farms developed and stocked, and adjustments / additions made to maintain viability. Many questions like what about the infirm and how are woman and other minorities not brutalized. Not easy problems. Spit balling here.

I don't know the % but ...

that being said leading insurrection and or treason should be punished by death sentence. I say that because it could be only way to save our democracy.

They are few and far between. If I were on a jury, it would have to be an extremely viscous crime that would make me select capital punishment, but there are cases that I could do it.

I am ok with it. In fact, I would go one step further and have it broadcast.

People should see and understand the consequences of their choices.

I would posit that the ones facing the death penalty are some of those who are incapable of or have barriers to grasping the consequences of their actions, which is part of the problem in the first place.

Executions should be broadcast.

Currently, executions are hidden and medicalized when it's actually state sanctioned murder.

It should be in a public space

I see the MAGAts eating popcorn and nachos during an execution. I don't think televising them is a good idea.

Cops and prisons, too.

I am aware of several people who deserve significant incarceration.

I am past friends with several people employed at maximum security prisons. The top of death penalty has never arisen with those people.

So far, in the past 4 years, I am not aware of any event that has affected my family to warrant long term incarceration or worse. Over 6 years ago, yes. But I wasn't aware of the events until 3-10 years ago, depending on the event, nor I am any of the lead people in the event. So, I haven't been called upon to make a judgment of prosecution.

As Voldemort knew, and wanted to be, a portion of one's soul may be lost.

for giving short-lived satisfaction to the survivors of a murder victim or a few members of the public.

It has been convincingly shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Too many wrongly convicted have been executed (perhaps the strongest reason for abolishment).

It is more costly to keep someone on death row for years than keep him/her in prison for life.

An individual sentenced to life who turns out to be innocent gets another chance for justice that the death penalty would not provide.

Vengeance is not a rational choice (and there is no point in killing someone to "teach them a lesson&quot .

But have problems with it in practice.

That is to say, I have no ethical issue with killing some people for heinous crimes, I just do not trust our justice system to get it 100% right and would rather 1000 guilty people who may deserve it live than have a single innocent person die.

I feel it should only be for cases where life w/o parole would still endanger society or when the perp is just so awful that just the thought of him alive is upsetting (Timothy McVeigh for example).
However, I feel it doesn't work in practice and too many poor people without adequate legal representation end up on death row.

They continue to commit crimes, break out of prison etc.
I felt Timothy McVeigh deserved the death penalty.

However, I'm against it in many cases that are currently out there.

I feel that it is warranted when society as whole needs a specific person to be completely gone. (For example Osama Bin Laden) I don't think it should be used to "send a message" or should be based on an "emotional reaction to a crime"...There are just some people who plain old dangerous no matter where they are...

Other than that, life w/o parole

In general I oppose it 98% of the time. I think in most cases life in prison is a far worse punishment than going to sleep forever.
I always thought it should be called Death Punishment instead of Death Penalty.

And the fact we execute so many people signals that we are a brutal people.