RateItAll: The Opinion Network

I'm giving this one 5-stars because - as a follower of the Master Teacher - I can't condone homicide regardless of whether or not it's legal AND because I'm convinced many potential killers are suicidal, and are therefore encouraged to kill by the prospect of being executed.

Great for when extradition is a factor or when the state doesn't have a death penalty.

I agree with Fitman on this issue. I'm against the death penalty for several reasons; in Texas, for instance, defendants charged with murder were being represented by lawyers who fell asleep while court was in session. But even if the guilt of the defendant has been clearly established, I'm against execution. Barbaric societies use the death penalty (and torture...and, yes, water-boarding is torture, just as an aside) as punishment. Still, I understand why people want it. If someone close to me was murdered, I'd want the murderer's heart on a platter. Still, I think a society with pretensions of being civilized (America) can't have the death penalty, but it needs and and has the right to be able to exact a substantial penalty against its murderers, and I think taking the murderer's freedom away for his (or her) lifetime is appropriate. A life spent behind the bars of prison is not a life any normal person could remotely desire (Gary Gilmore actively pursued the death penalty to avoid it, as have others; I remember Jack Henry Abbott writing that many murderers kill because they are, as Fitman rightly notes, motivated by a suicidal impulse and want the State to extinguish them...why else did Ted Bundy decide to kill women in Florida, if not for this very reason?). Yes, prisoners can lift weights and watch TV and play cards and maybe even have sex (Manson murderer Charles "Tex" Watson has fathered 3 children and started his own on-line ministry since he was incarcerated). They can also never walk the streets again as free men, and I think people who have never been confined can't appreciate what an enormous penalty that is. Sirhan Sirhan, who attempts regularly to get paroled, has said he's a different person than he was when he fatally shot Robert Kennedy in 1968. He probably is being truthful when he says that. It's irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. It would be irrelevant if he became a scientist behind bars and discovered a cure for cancer. By virtue of the fact that he deliberately and cold-bloodedly (unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that he was the hypnotized dupe of some other nefarious agency) fired a bullet into another person's head, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, as does Charles Manson, or does anyone else who commits such a crime.

But this should be life with NO parole,not thrown out of jail after 2 years.Of course,if evidence exonerates them,then that is different.

What better to do with a murderer than put them away in jail for the rest of their life. I don't believe in the government ordering inmates to die, and I don't agree with giving them a chance to get out on parole either.

When you make that ultimate decision you need to pay that ultimate price. Killem. Sure, its the easy way out but they deserve the penalty and not a life of free room and board. Id rather contribute to charity than pay for some punks food and lodging while they live out their days in shop and PE classes.

They shouldn't be let off easy by killing them. Have them work their asses off daily doing something that is good for society. They've proven they can be destructive, now let them spend the rest of their lives doing something positive. Have them build houses for Habitat For Humanity. Have them make things in woodshop/metalshop to sell and use the proceeds to give to charities. Better yet, start up a charitable fund in their victims names and have them find ways to contribute to it for the rest of their lives. Make those innocent lives they took a daily focus in their lives so they never forget.

It depends on the situation, is there physical evidence. Eye witnesses are often wrong. Also the idea of hard labor, what do we do if the conviction is over turned?

I think this fits in most situations, but I still like the idea of executing the really twisted ones.

I think there should be flexibility for each crime.

The death penalty isn't an option in Australia and I'm relieved. Martin Bryant massacred 36 people in '96, a death sentence would've felt like a pardon. Instead he's punished to harsh confinement, has attempted suicide, and had a fellow inmate spray chemicals in his eyes. I'm no vigil-ante, but this almost seems just. To some murderers death is not a punishment, it is a relief. You may disagree or not, but this is what I believe. And I think Gandhi said An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

The charge of first degree murder is normally reserved for the most heinous of murder cases. I can see in some cases where this would be appropriate, but generally, I would recommend capital punishment.

Too many people yelling to keep a convicted killer alive and not saying a word about taking innocent lives. Pull their feeding tube, why let them live and kill an innocent woman!

I disagree with this and I'm a firm believer of second chances. It depends if the murderer has any prior convictions. If the 1st degree murderer has no prior records of committing crimes, he should at least be placed on parole.

I'd prefer slow torture, but this works.

I am totally in favor of this option as opposed to the death penalty in almost all cases save for acts that threaten our national institutions- like terrorism. However it must be insisted that the sentence is absolute. No parole mean exactly that- NO parole!

Not enough of a deterent...these bottom feeders need to be put down. Death penalty for all 1st degree murders. I dont want my tax dollars being wasted on feeding and housing these scumbags.

This one is the next best option to Death Penalty.Although taxpayers are keeping these scum fed and clothed.

I agree with this as a means of serving justice to those who take an innocent life away. Why not pay the consequences of murdering an innocent person by having the criminal lose his own life. The potential for this in my view would serve as a better deterrant than capital punishment, which is rarely exercised and far more expensive to prosecute and maintain in the long run. Justice is served and you don't have to deal with the ethical issues revolving around state-sanctioned executions.