Chronicle poll results: Death penalty
PollOur readers share their views

Chronicle poll results: Death penalty

We asked our readers if they think the death penalty should be abolished. Here's what they said.

Last week, the Chronicle asked its readers in an electronic poll the following question: “Do you think the death penalty should be abolished?” Of the 245 people who responded, 54% said no; 39% said yes; and 7% said they were not sure. Comments were submitted by 58 people. A few follow.

We need it more now than ever. We also need a governor who is not afraid to use it.

Sentence the offender to life without the possibility of parole. He or she should spend the rest of their natural life in mental anguish contemplating what they did.

While I understand the ramifications of having the death penalty and the unforgivable and repulsive nature of innocent people being executed, I feel it is needed for the most heinous of crimes.

The major argument against the death penalty isn’t moral but economic. It is never carried out here in Pennsylvania, but is hugely expensive to house death row inmates and go through the endless series of legal appeals and court filings. Stop the charade and face current reality.

The death penalty (legally sanctioned killing) is immoral, debases us as a society and has no deterrent effect. The vast majority of civilized countries have abolished it. Moreover, it has been proven that the cost of a death penalty trial and ensuing appeals exceeds the cost of life in prison.

I think there are some cases that are so terrible that the perpetrator should be put to death.

It’s barbaric! It should be against the law!

Its only benefit is satisfying — or attempting to satisfy — our collective thirst for retribution, and governments should not be in the retribution business.

No person nor state should be killing another human. If you want revenge, you are no better than the convicted.

The death penalty should not be abolished, but the standard of evidence should be higher relative to imprisonment.

I’ll agree to abolish the death penalty when the Second Amendment is revoked

It is amazing to me of the extent to which the opponents of capital punishment have over the years been able to construct almost impenetrable thickets of legal procedural hurdles designed to prevent, through incessant delays, the actual execution of convicted murderers, the conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of which can be readily found in the Talmud.

There needs to be some deterrent — but it should be used rarely, and the standard for using it should be “We’re damn sure the person did the crime.”

I think it should be limited to mass crimes (three or more deaths) and to crimes against

Not only should it not be abolished, the penalty should be adjudicated swiftly.

I believe the only people who should be put to death are those guilty of the most heinous crimes, such as serial murderers.

Killing doesn’t stop killing! PJC

read more: