the death penalty --- for or against ?

One of the major problems with the death penalty in the U.S. (aside from anyone's moral convictions) is the unbelievably high cost of it. It is debatable whether life in prison is more expensive than capital punishment.

Another thought...now that DNA testing is becoming more available, the chances are decreasing that innocent people may be executed. Does this change anyone's feelings about the subject?

Shipman was an evil, evil man. Yet I don't think that the government should re-instate the death penalty, although this might cut taxes. They would not be able to reintroduce the death penalty without quitting the EU and EC, which would spell financial turmoil and tempestuous relationships with some of the world's biggest supporters.

Not only am I against this on humanitarian terms, but on pragmatic ones; the death penalty does not deter. Look at America's states with the death penalty allowed. I feel that life imprisonment is much more severe than the easy way out (i.e. execution) though it sickened me when the Bulmer killers had treatment better than the average good kid. When I worked teaching, a fourteen-year-old came up to me and said, 'I'm going to be bad this year, ____, 'cause the bad are always the ones who get all the good treatment.' Conditions should be stricter; when the system institutionalises prisoners, they see that prison is easier than actual work, and continue to rob, rob, rob. I feel that the death penalty is unsuited to Britain.

Plus there's always the chance that an innocent person could face death for nothing. Look at the Birmingham six, the Guildford Four, and the Roy Meadows/Cot death débâcle.

In favor, but it's not a really big issue with me. I do wish life in prison really meant Life in Prison. It doesn't.

Canada does not have the death penalty, and no extradtion to those countries that do.

I am against the death penalty.

I second that.
Canada outlawed the death penalty in 1970, there abouts. The last man executed was found innocent as were many others subsequently after their deaths.
The dealth penalty doesn't prohibit violent crime. Most violent criminals come from far scarier scenarios than prison or certain death, they see it on the street all the time.
In canada, we sequester the badiest of the bad. If it were up to me, they'd be put in general pop. Let them take care of their own...

I was all for the death penalty most of my life. But, the judges and lawyers are far too willing to play dumb games with us and so I don't trust them to make reasonable judgements. I have to vote against it now.

Against, used to be for.

To me it's more about vengance than justice.

In a way the issue is rather irrelevant. A bed rock assumption of the "state" as a social political system is that it can , when it thinks necessary, expropriate anything including the lives of its citizens (subjects) for its own purposes. No other socio/political system devised by humans (band tribes, Chiefdomships) makes this assertion. It uses criminal, or rather those accused of certain kinds of crimes, to periodically make that point. So when push comes to shove, if for what ever reason, a government thinks it is necessary (particularly for it's own preservation) it will execute people. "Outlawing" the death penalty simple alows us the ignore this little fact about the kind of social system we are enmeshed in. If the state needs it, it will return. Personally, I do not like the death penalty and there have been sufficient numbers of condemned prisoner who have been proven to be innocent to make me suspicious of the fairness and objectivity of the judical system in the US. But I have no illusions that taking it off the law books would do away with executions.

Last death penalty in Australia carried out about 1965, thank reason and compassion.

I am for the death penalty ONLY for the most egregious acts, where the guilt of the person is absolutely certain. By egregious acts, I am talking about torture-murder, serial murder, rape murder, and molestion murder of a child.

Australia doesn't and I wouldn't support it's re-introduction. But if someone commits a capital crime where it exists, I've got no problem with it being carried out in accordance with the law of the locale.

I'm against. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their miserale lives, although I am with Roger in saying when they say life, I wish it actually meant life.

I oppose it on the grounds that its only true purpose is a sense of vengeance for the survivors of victims. Any argument about deterence i've ever heard totally ignores that criminals either commit crimes in the heat of the moment, without consequences, or they plan their crimes. When planning a crime, being apprehended and convicted are never a part of the plan. It is barbaric to murder, whether one is robbing a convenience store, or judging a captial crime.

Hang them high!

<drops the joint>

Edit: Was in response to Au's earlier unedited post saying "Hang the high"

Against. It's simply punishing a crime in a primitive fashion.

absolutely against it.

It makes me feel sick if I'm honest. I am entirely against it and have always felt so.