Speak Outs
Speak Out
Is the death penalty constitutional?

Sept. 26, 2011

By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer

In the same week the state of Georgia executed Troy Davis by lethal injection, two other men convicted of murder were put to death in other parts of the country.

Alabama executed Derrick O’Neal Mason, who was convicted of the 1994 shooting of a convenience store clerk, and Texas executed Lawrence Russell Brewer, a white supremacist who killed a black man, James Byrd Jr., by dragging him behind a truck.

Davis’ case generated the most attention, nationally and internationally, when his cause drew some prominent supporters. After his conviction, several witnesses who identified Davis as the shooter recanted their testimony, and some jurors said they changed his mind about whether he was guilty. Davis maintained his innocence until the end. His execution reignited the debate over the death penalty in the United States, and whether it violates the Constitution.

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has existed around the globe for centuries. It came under debate in the United States in the late 1800s, when the Supreme Court ruled in In re Kemmler that death by electrocution is not “cruel and unusual punishment” – something the Eighth Amendment protects us from. The debate continued, and in 1972, the court decided in Furman v. Georgia that Georgia’s death penalty law was unconstitutional because it was imposed in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. That decision effectively struck down death penalty laws in 40 other states. Capital punishment was allowed to resume in 1976 when the court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty can be constitutional when it includes sentencing guidelines, room for appeals and other restrictions.

The Supreme Court continued to address the issue of capital punishment over the decades, ruling that juveniles could not receive the death penalty but that there was no prohibition again executing mentally retarded inmates.

At the time of Davis’ execution, 35 inmates had been put to death in 2011. Some 3,200 others in 36 states are on death row, awaiting execution. Some states, like New Mexico, have abolished the death penalty, but plan to carry out the executions of those already on death row. In total, the death penalty is allowed in 34 states, with the greatest number of executions in Texas (475 executions since 1976, 11 of them in 2011) and Virginia (106 executions since 1976, one of them in 2011). By comparison, 16 states don’t have capital punishment: Michigan has never executed a prisoner while New Jersey and Illinois have repealed capital punishment more recently.

What do you think?

Is the death penalty constitutional? Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Join the discussion!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
1/17/2018
Frankfort / KY
Tempest
Western Hills High School
I don't really have an opinion on the death penalty but it would depend on the situation. I think that certain states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty like for example Texas or California because they are both large states unlike Vermont or Delaware. I do not think that the practice violates the constitutional right of protection against cruel and unusual punishment because they take care of the criminal until the point of death witch then it would not be cruel because the criminal would not fell or he harmed during the process.

5/15/2017
Magnolia / TX
Amber Hicks
Metzger / Magnolia West High school
I believe in both sides of the death penitently. in my opinion it depends on the situation for example some think that terminally ill patients and the worst of the worst criminals deserve it. Looking at it from the patient's side they do not deserve to suffer what make them live in terrible pain for three months to just end up dying in the end why not let them go peacefully. In the criminals outlook on it why waste and hard earned tax dollars for a criminal to get three meals a day a shelter, we could be spending that money are better more useful things. I understand both points of view but it really just depends on the situation.

2/13/2017
Richmond/Virginia
Emily Gundel
Ms. Marple/Midlothian Middle School
The death penalty is unconstitutional. It's morally,socially, and politically wrong. Lethal Injections may not violate the 8th amendment, but hanging,firing squads, and the electric chair are. With the death penalty we have a 50-50 chance of killing the wrong person, and we can't just revive them and say sorry. Once someone's dead, they're dead and there's nothing we can do about it. Also instead of having one funeral for the murder victim's family, we're going to have to have two, one for the inmate's family as well. The death penalty costs more to perform than, holding someone in prison for life. It costs $2.6million to perform the Death Penalty, but it only costs $31,260 to hold someone in prison for life. The death penalty is unconstitutional and I think we should abolish it.

11/3/2016
sidney, Mt
Peachlyn
Faulhaber/ sidney high school
The death penalty is unconstitutional. States should not be able to carry out the death penalty, because it is not right to kill someone based on whether they are guilty or not. People lie, peolpe are biased, people take bribes. Why do we have the right to take someones life, when we are most likely executing this exact person for the same reason. If they are later on proved innocent, what happens then? We cant bring them back to life and say "oh im sorry i killed you, turns out it wasn't you" life doesn't work that way. The death penalty is a cruel and unnusual punishment, therefore it is unconstitutional. We don't have the right to take someones life, by killing them.

11/3/2016
Sidney MT
Lexi
Faulhaber
Capital punishment should only be allowed for horrific crimes where there is enough circumstantial evidence proving that the inmate is guilty without a doubt.

11/3/2016
sidney, MT
lane
mr.faulhaber/ sidney
I feel like it because, the only way you are going to get the death penalty is if you did something really bad. I also feel like if you do something that bad that you deserve it and there is no need for you to be around.

7/3/2016
Kaneohe, Hawaii
Tima
Mr. Texiera
I believe if the crime was bad enough to deserve a death penalty, why do we have to pay for the upkeep of them on death row? Who cares if they have to suffer on earth? Putting them to sleep is fitting for the crime.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Gabrielle
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional, only if someone does something too bad to just put in jail. For instance, if you kill someone for no main purpose, you deserve the death penalty. I also think that states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty. I strongly believe that being killed after you have killed another, especially if they are innocent is a good enough punishment.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Caroline
Mr. Hanna Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that a death penalty is necassary for murder. If someone kills another person, they deserve to feel the pain that they caused to an innocent. I think we should have a death penalty so that people get punished for ending anothers life.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Carlos
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
The death penalty is constitutional if it is done in a humane way. Nobody should be killed with assault and cruelty. They deserve to be killed but not the way everyone wants them to. The electric chair is a fast and easy way to kill the murderer. If someone kills somebody else by accident then it shouldn't be applied. It should be allowed in all states. The murderer shouldn't be in jail. He murdered somebody and he can't live without being punished.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg Pa
Uzoya
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I strong believe that there should be a death penalty. The death penalty is more people that committed serious crimes. The person knew what the punishment were for their actions therefor I don't feel bad for them when they get what they deserve.

3/15/2016
Stoudsburg
EmmaScott
Mr.Hanna
I believe that there should be a death penalty. If someone takes another's life, then they should lose their liberty and life. As long as the person on death row is killed in a humane way, it's constitutional. They should suffer the pain that their victim did.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Samuel W.
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
The death penalty is constitutional. States should be allowed to carry out executions because people who did serious crimes like mass murder and treason don't deserve to still be allowed to walk around. The resteictions that should be imposed would be that you shouldn't let executions occur unless proven by evidence and with statement saying why.

3/15/2016
Stoudsburg
EmmaScott
Mr.Hanna
I believe that there should be a death penalty. If someone takes another's life, then they should lose their liberty and life. As long as the person on death row is killed in a humane way, it's constitutional. They should suffer the pain that their victim did.

12/4/2015
Massachusetts
Nick
Watertown High
Yes, because if somebody does something bad enough to the point where they are being sentenced to death then they don't deserve the rights they have. They permanently altered the society so they need to be removed from it permanently

11/10/2015
Westland/Michigan
Trevalyn Carroll
Mr.Fite/ Canton Prep. Highschool
Capital punishment is unconstitutional because of its ramifications. What if the person is really innocent, was the death justified, what are the circumstances of the crime? All good questions, I ask is anyone really qualified to judge if a person dies or not?

11/9/2015
Canton, Michigan
Shelby
Mr. Fite / Canton Prep
In my opinion, I do not think that people should be served the death penalty for their actions. If they murdered someone, they should suffer for what they did, and killing them instantly is not going to make them learn that what they did was very wrong. Serving them the death penalty will only make it so they don't suffer anymore. If they are dead, how will they ever learn from their mistakes?

11/9/2015
Canton, Michigan
Shelby
Mr. Fite / Canton Prep
In my opinion, I do not think that people should be served the death penalty for their actions. If they murdered someone, they should suffer for what they did, and killing them instantly is not going to make them learn that what they did was very wrong. Serving them the death penalty will only make it so they don't suffer anymore. If they are dead, how will they ever learn from their mistakes?

11/9/2015
Lansing, Michigan
Jasmine
Mr. Fite
I genuinely believe that the death penalty is both immoral and unconstitutional. The death penalty permits and supports barbarism and killing those who kill. Also, a penalty is a punishment and a punishment is something someone comes out of as a better person, learning from their mistakes. Death is not something a person can "come back" or "learn" from, death is permanent on this Earth. Also, the death penalty is unconstitutional because the Bill of Rights forbids and protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. Is killing somebody not considered cruel and unusual anymore?

11/9/2015
Canton MI
Gabrielle
Mr.Fite/ Canton Prep High School
Yes, the death penalty should be allowed for people who have killed one or more person or people. This person took away the life/lives of another. The only way to make things equal is to take the life of the person who took in the first place. This person knew exactly what they were doing when they killed another man. They should suffer their punishment, no question about it.

11/9/2015
Canton, Michigan
Zacharie
Mr.Fite/Canton Preparatory Highschool
The Death Penalty, while not seen as very humane, is technically unconstitutional. The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and in most eyes killing someone is cruel and/or unusual. The Death penalty is not only less effective than most hope it to be, but it is also costly (about $1.26 million per in fact). In the majority of public view, the Death Penalty is unconstitutional in violation of the 8th Amendment.

11/9/2015
Canton, Michigan
Zacharie
Mr.Fite/Canton Preparatory Highschool
The Death Penalty, while not seen as very humane, is technically unconstitutional. The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and in most eyes killing someone is cruel and/or unusual. The Death penalty is not only less effective than most hope it to be, but it is also costly (about $1.26 million per in fact). In the majority of public view, the Death Penalty is unconstitutional in violation of the 8th Amendment.

11/5/2015
Canton Michigan
Mikayla
Canton Prep High School, Mr. Fite
In my opinion, yes inmates should serve the death penalty if they have killed others. Especially if you have killed 3 people like Derrick O'Neal did.

11/5/2015
Canton Prep HS
Darrius Harris Jr
Mr. Fite
Yes, The death penalty is constitutional because people who take lives must have their lives taken. If it was a accidental kill, or self-defense, then the death penalty is not constitutional. But if you purposely kill others, then you have no right to life yourself.

11/5/2015
Canton, Michigan
Wyatt
Mr.FIte
I believe that the Death Penalty is not constitutional because it is a very evil thing. In my opinion why should we be able to kill people without getting in trouble? If people murder someone they are getting in trouble by being sent to jail or the Death Penalty. If the people that kill someone get in trouble, I don't think it's right to kill people while getting away with it. Also like in Davis' case, the court wasn't sure if he was guilty and may have been executed for no reason. Overall the Death Penalty is not constitutional and is an evil thing to do.

11/5/2015
Canton, Michigan
Khary Slate
Mr.Fite, Canton Preparatory HighSchool
Yes, The death penalty is constitutional because the constitution doesn't say anything against it and if you commit a horrible crime then you deserve it. For example, If you commit murder or rape, you should get the death penalty.

11/5/2015
Canton Michigan
Mikayla
Canton Prep High School, Mr. Fite
In my opinion, yes inmates should serve the death penalty if they have killed others. Especially if you have killed 3 people like Derrick O'Neal did.

11/5/2015
Plymouth Michigan
Justin
Mr.Fite Canton Prep
no its not constitutional, what ever happened to no cruel and unusual punishment? this seems to be unbelievably cruel from my view point

11/4/2015
Canton Michigan
Rhyder
Canton Prep High School, Mr. Fite
Yes the Death penalty is constitutional, The prisoners should have to endure what they did to their victims due to Hammeraubis code, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" this means that if they killed someone in a aweful way they should be treated the same that means Lethal Injection, Firing squad, being hung, or even the chair. Its probably even less of a punishment than what Derrick O'Neal Mason did. He took three lives so the authorities had all right to execute him.

11/4/2015
Canton Michigan
Kolten
Mr.Fite
I believe that the Death Penalty or "Capital Punishment" is Constitutional, because there is nothing in the Constitution saying anything against it, and the Supreme Court has allowed it and if the Supreme Court says it can happen then it makes, what ever they ruled on would be allowed, and since they ruled on a case to where a person was sentenced to Capital Punishment, since the Supreme Court said it was allowed so it makes legal and constitutional since what ever the Supreme Court makes legal from cases can be supported with the 9th Amendment. States should be permitted to carry out the Death Penalty, if that is how they decide how to punish there most dangerous criminals who may have committed a murder, and the people who get Capital Punishment are usually murders who deserve it, so yes i believe that states should be able to carry out the death penalty. In conclusion I believe that the Death Penalty is constitutional

11/4/2015
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Summer Bush
Mr.Fite/Canton Preparatory High School
I think it could be constitutional and unconstitutional. If the person getting the death penalty is deserving, I don't see why it shouldn't be right. In the old days they automatically hung you for things you did wrong. I don't think it's constitutional if the crime was robbery, but if you killed someone or are a rapist, you deserve the death penalty and it's constitutional to get it.

11/4/2015
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Summer Bush
Mr.Fite/Canton Preparatory High School
I think it could be constitutional and unconstitutional. If the person getting the death penalty is deserving, I don't see why it shouldn't be right. In the old days they automatically hung you for things you did wrong. I don't think it's constitutional if the crime was robbery, but if you killed someone or are a rapist, you deserve the death penalty and it's constitutional to get it.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg/PA
Valeria
Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
The death penalty can be both constitutional and unconstitutional. It will be unconstitutional when it causes massive amouts of pain to the inmate, but if the inmate is numb to it then it doesnt violate any laws. Even though it might be constitutional i still dont think states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty. I know that the inmate might have done the worst crime., but no one deserves to die. I believe seeing them rot in jail, behind bars, where they cant even see the sun, is a whole lot better than just killing them. I also think this because not always someone who is proved guilty is guilty, there is always a chance that youre killing an innocent person. I believe there should be restrictions before carrying something as delicate as this out. The people who inject the lethal injection into the inmates body should know if it will hurt or not. If it hurts the inmate then they shouldnt be aloud to inject it. The practice of the death penalty can be violating the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It might not always do, but it definitely can. Since we started using a new sedative when the old one was banned, inmates have been feeling pain. I find this to be violating the law. Therefore why go through all this stress when we can just not have the death penalty at all.

1/22/2015
Murrieta, CA
Richard H.
Mr. Jabro Creekside High School
To me I think the death penalty is very constitutional, depending on the crime committed. It would be very unconstitutional to just kill off prisoners that like robbed a grocery store or have a lot of traffic tickets, that would be a bad look for the government and law enforcement. But I think that it is very much necessary when it come to people who do unspeakable things.

1/15/2015
Murrieta, CA
Aislynn
Mr. Jabro Creekside High School
I don't think the death penalty is constitutional. I feel as though the death penalty needs to be abolished. In recent years, there have been many technological advances which have reopened many cases and the cases were re investigated and found that many people who have been executed were innocent. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Our justice system is not foolproof enough to sentence a person, who may or may not be innocent, to death just due to the chance that they might be innocent.

12/2/2014
Sidney/MT
Taylor
Mr.Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional. It is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, which violates the Eighth Amendment. I specifically agree with William J. Brennan, JD, Justice of the US Supreme Court, in the July 2, 1976 dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, when he stated, "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment...it treats members of the human race as non-humans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded." We should not be teaching our next generation that when somebody messes up, we should kill them. The government should not be able to tell someone that they deserve to die, and they should not have the right to kill anyone. Also, states should not be permitted to carry out the death penalty. On a religious note, only God can take away life. I say just let the guilty person rot in jail or let them get the help they need. There shouldn't be any restrictions needed because it is immoral and cruel to kill another human being. I also agree with Katherine from Watertown, MA. She says that some important factors in determining if the death penalty should be administered is how good the inmate's legal representation is and if the inmate is discriminated against, which could violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Too many people have been put to death, and many are still on death row. The greatest number of executions have been in Texas (475 executions since 1976), but it hasn't helped their crime rate at all. They've always been in the top three in the country. Overall, the death penalty is unconstitutional, and there are many other ways to punish violators of the law.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg Pennsylvania
Jordan
Mr.Hanna Stroudsburg JHS
Yes I believe it is constitutional. The reason is when somebody becomes such a threat to other people, it is not safe. The person should be either killed or put in solitary confinement for the rest of their life because they can not be trusted. If they are trusted somebody can be injured or killed.

11/14/2014
East Stroudsburg/ Pennsylvania
Jaylen
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg junior high school
What is the theme or moral do to the consumption of the death penalty. I think that rule should be rarely rarely used for like 110% guilty that that citizen should be dead. Now here are the examples for using the death penalty on someone. Let's try Eric Frein. I personally think that he should be sentenced to the death penalty because he killed a cop now I know the whole story behind this but that content should not be leaked. But him having all these cops and police officers chasing was the real struggle and I personally think that Eric Frein should be sentenced do the death penalty.

10/28/2014
watertown/Ma
demetri
Mr.Rimas/watertown high school
What do we learn from putting people to death? What does killing the prisoner teach him or her? If we are trying to build a better society we need to make a system of punishment. Death is not a punishment, we make it seem like it is because, we act like were so perfect ourselves but in fact we have no right to take anyone’s life. The bible condemns the death penalty in the old testament states that “When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Meaning that we are hypocritical. We want to punish someone for their sin when all of us have sin. No one is perfect in this society and we can be the ones to determine who receives death for any crime. Before every school day, “ I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all ”. If this nation is under God why do we use death as a form of punishment? That’s a contradiction because the bible condemns all killing and we say this nation is united under God yet we kill people as a punishment.

10/28/2014
Watertown, Ma
Katherine
Rimas
Personally, I do not agree with using the death penalty as a punishment for a crime. One of the reasons I do not agree with it is because it’s almost a “get out of jail free” card. Inmates who get the death penalty do not have to serve out the entire sentence and suffer for what they have done. It is virtually a painless death. If someone is sentenced to life without parole, they deserve to rot in prison and serve out their sentence. I guess it is an effectual punishment if the criminal values their life, but in cases, for instance, involving terrorists, they put their life on the line for what they believe in, so they would rather die than rot in prison. It is futile for cases like the Boston Bomber. The death penalty has always raised arguments and been controversial. Many people strongly believe in the death penalty, and others are strong against using the death penalty. Some of the reasons that people oppose it is because it is very expensive, many innocent people have been put to death, it’s not really helping the crime rate, it discriminates, and some people do not believe it is constitutional. In Texas the death penalty is legal, but the murder rate is still high. If death penalty was effective, the murder rate would not be as high as it is. An important factor in receiving the death penalty is how good the inmate’s legal representation is. The worse it is, the higher the probability there is for an inmate to get the death penalty. This makes the death penalty more biased towards poorer people who can’t afford a good lawyer. According to death penalty.org, in 82% of cases, a person’s race was a major factor in whether or not he or she got the death penalty. A much more cost-effective and better alternative is giving an inmate life in prison with the possibility of parole. That way, the dangerous person is away from the population forever and it’s cheaper. After all, it is the taxpayers who pay for the execution. As a taxpayer who values their paycheck every

10/27/2014
watertown
Jordan Carey
John Rimas
unnecessary death is simply stupid, there is no need to be excessively violent, period. whether ending a life is un constitutional or not is a different thing entirely. The fact that the constitution is read in a way that doesn't discourage taking life but instead encourages creative killing makes me sick

10/27/2014
Watertown, MA
Matt
Rimas, Watertown High School
The death penalty is a very controversial subject. Pro or not, both sides have very valid pros and cons. Ultimately, it comes down to personal opinion and your moral values. To me, I believe that the death penalty should be a legal repercussion for only the harshest of crimes, such as child molesters and murderers. I understand that two wrongs don’t make a right. But in certain situations for certain crimes, the convicted don’t even deserve the privilege of life. Being able to live, think and be is a freedom that they shouldn’t be allowed to have. Some people argue that the death penalty is only doing the criminals a favor by saving them the torture of life in prison. As I said, they shouldn’t even be given the right of life. To lock somebody up for life, we must provide them with a cell, clothes, food and other necessities for the remainder of their life sentence. We will be wasting our resources on people who don’t deserve them. Those resources could be put towards criminals who actually belong in jail, and didn’t commit such heinous crimes. Also, another benefit of the death penalty is possibly preventing further crimes. Clearly the people who commit crimes that warrant capital punishment are mentally ill, and could potentially commit the same or worse crimes. They’re unpredictable, and the death penalty saves us that chance. In a recent capital punishment case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, Kennedy used his right to petition and argued the death penalty went against the eighth amendment. The amendment states that the federal government is prohibited to use cruel and unusual punishment. The reason that this appeal did not work was because the death penalty is not cruel and unusual. What they did to warrant capital punishment makes it not unusual, and lethal injection is not considered cruel. It’s said to be virtually painless and a peaceful way to go out. Therefore the state of Louisiana was proved constitutional, and won this case.

10/27/2014
Watertown, ma
Gina Stanizzi
Rimas
I am for the death penalty because i believe that ever one should get what they deserve.

10/27/2014
Watertown/MA
Francesca Egea
Rimas/WHS
I am for the death penalty, because I believe if you commit a murder you deserve to be murdered.

10/27/2014
Watertown, MA
Palavi
John Rimas WHS
I do not believe the death penalty is constitutional because taking a criminal's life away is not justice. Justice is having them suffer in cruel pain/punishment. Executing them kills them but I don’t think that’s just enough. They deserve pain.

10/27/2014
Watertown, MA
Sara
Mr Rimas/WHS
In many ways I think the death penitently should be allowed. However, I think that there are too many flaws in our legal system for this to continue. There have been too many execution since the 70's of mostly black men being executed for crimes against white men. Also the number of many innocent people that have been wrongly killed because of misinformation and prejudice. I'm not completely against the death penitently I believe however that it needs more work.

10/27/2014
Watertown, MA
Sara
Mr Rimas/WHS
In many ways I think the death penitently should be allowed. However, I think that there are too many flaws in our legal system for this to continue. There have been too many execution since the 70's of mostly black men being executed for crimes against white men. Also the number of many innocent people that have been wrongly killed because of misinformation and prejudice. I'm not completely against the death penitently I believe however that it needs more work.

10/27/2014
Watertown
steven delgado
John Rimas
Do not kill them.

10/27/2014
Watertown, Massachusetts
Vanessa
Mr. Rimas - Watertown High School
I am against the death penalty because I don't believe it's beneficial to the country and it's unfair for some people. An example would be Texas, a state that is big on the death penalty, but also has the highest crime rate in the U.S.. I find it unfair because there have been innocent people who have been wrongly convicted and executed (I believe the race card plays a role in this as well).

10/27/2014
Watertown
Jeff
john Rimas
if you have committed a brutal crime to be sentenced to the death penalty, then you deserve to be put to death. considering the person you killed will never come back why should you be aloud to live.

10/27/2014
Watertown, MA
Brendan Berkeley
John Rimas
I am not for the death penalty because our country is based on the right of innocent until proven guilty. Often times innocent people are claimed to the death penalty having done nothing wrong while the real offender walks around freely not suffering for their crime. As stated on the CNN website, there are five different ways mainly that capital punishment, or the death penalty, can happen. The highest rate of them are done by lethal injection at 87%. Electrocution is 11%, using gas chamber is at 1% and hangings and firing squads are done each 0.5% of the time. While most guilty go through the lethal injection road, it isn’t always the easiest process. Many people suffer traumatically in which could take 5-10 more than expected. Some states have found it difficult to get the certain amount and type of drugs to make this an easy process. This is also another reason why it isn’t a good process. Although some people may deserve based on the crimes they commit, I feel as though that the biggest punishment would be to serve a life sentence for the rest of their life in prison and have no association with the outside world.

10/27/2014
Watertown
Lucas
Mr.Rimas
Lucas McNamara 10/27/14 Death Penalty Stance The death penalty is one of the most controversial disputed arguments; should we use death as punishment? Yes the death penalty exists and people should be afraid to break the law out of fear that they might lose their life. We have already based a lot of things on the 3 strike rule we should apply to law, if you break the law you go to jail for the amount of time a judge determines which a strike is. 3 strikes and you’re out; break the law 3 times and a judge will determine whether you live or die. We need to protect the lives of people who want to live a productive life from those who want to destroy; the people who live life to destroy don’t deserve to live in a world filled with good people because in some cases these people will kill other people who have contributed meaningfully to society. Since people have the ability through freewill to kill people why shouldn’t the people who have lived honest lives and whose existence proved to be productive control death and judge whether or not there life should end. The law is very strict which is why we have degrees of punishment rather than one punishment for all crimes I believe after serious reforms to our law death could be the only punishment and because of that the world would finally live in peace. Incarceration is very important for the economy, those who follow the law are allowed to build their own wealth and propagate those who break the law shouldn’t have to the choice to build their own wealth everything they make should go towards the Federal Reserve’s innumerable amount of debt. Everyone should be allowed to live in Democracy if you can’t or don’t you get placed in a Communism and if you break that system you are thrown at the feet of a tyrant who will determine your whether or not you live or die. In a society where killing machines and privacy protects us from the law and each other a death penalty must be implemented.

10/27/2014
Watertown, MA
Erin
Mr Rimas/WHS
Project Youth is a program that sends high school students to state correctional institutions in order to try and prevent students from going down the same path as some of the criminals who speak to them. When we went to prison a couple weeks ago, the majority of the people there were convicted for some form of murder, and all of them were desperately seeking self improvement and redemption. If the state of Massachusetts used capital punishment to execute people who made a few bad decisions in life, it would be taking away the human right of improvement and redemption, as well as risking the murder of innocent people. The eight prisoners who spoke to us at the Project Youth seminar at Old Colony Correctional Institute all preached how one bad decision can change your life forever. They took the time and care to tell their stories, in order to prevent high school age children from making those bad decisions, and in that possibly improving the lives of several children. All of the prisoners we spoke to had accepted that they had made a mistake, and they regretted every action they made that lead up to it. All of them were trying to make up for the mistakes they knew could never be changed, and through prison found a way to turn themselves around. Giving these prisoners the opportunity to better themselves and find their path in life, even if they have to spend it in prison, is far more humane than killing them using capital punishment, and any nation that preaches life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should grant its citizens that right. In 1981, police officer Thomas Szafranski was killed when shots were fired at his police cruiser when he was stopped at an intersection. Leo Jones was sitting in his apartment with his cousin, Bobby Hammonds, when the police busted in. They claimed Jones had confessed, and Hammonds said that he saw Jones leaving the apartment with a rifle and returning after he heard gunshots. more than 15 years later, another retired police

10/27/2014
watertown,MA
Elest R
Mr.Rimas WHS
I personally am firmly against the death penalty.

6/12/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Kyle J
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
The death penalty in my opinion, is completely constitutional. It is an effective way to punish those of the world who have distributed much pain and suffering to innocent people. Take Hitler for example, he has caused more torment and torture than virtually anyone in the world. If he was taken into custody and put to trial he would've easily received the death penalty. Just because the extent isn't the same doesn't mean the same consequences for other people, though. Another example would be the white supremacist who murdered an African American man. He may not have gone to the limit that Hitler did but his actions have violated the natural moral system in a tremendous way. For people like this the death penalty is the only suitable punishment in order. People can argue that it's unconstitutional by saying it violates the Eight Amendment, but it completely follows the guide lines that pertain to the second half. Cruel and unusual punishment are things like being hung or flogged like in the times of the Romans and other ancient civilizations. But methods used in the death penalty are quick and painless, but they still serve their purpose. There is nothing cruel and unusual about justice and delivering punishment to those who deserve it.

5/7/2014
Irvine/CA
Celine
Budde/University High School
In the past year, support for the death sentence has dwindled drastically; people no longer supporting it as fervently, for new technology has allowed investigators to declare suspected murderers innocent, and in turn, exonerate them. I believe that the death sentence should be present because it deters would-be criminals from acting, and it serves as a just punishment for those who have truly done wrong. Of course, there's always the question of morals, and religion, and if the eath sentence is constitutional, or not, but without it, crime rates would be higher, for with the current jail system, prisoners are treated with much more leniency than they deserve, thus making jail a place of sanctuary, even luxury for some. So I ask you, should we be spending countless of tax payer dollars to protect, clothe, feed, and provide excercise for murderers and rapists? It's all fine and dandy to stand on the sidelines and shout for inmate rights, but what if it's you, or your family member who was the victim? Would you want to pay for the murderer's well being, while you or your loved one(s) are left behind to pick up the pieces? The death sentence deters such cases from happening.

5/7/2014
Irvine CA
James
University High School
The death penalty is constitutional. Because it is constitutional, it should be used as much as possible and for as longas possible until the killers stop killing. If a killer wants to kill, they deserve to be killed. Although the constitution says every individual has a right to life, it does NOT say ANY individual has the right to TAKE life. Also, take a look aroung the world. Look at all the wars, the revolts, the global corruption we are shielded from in the bubble of USA. Are people really saying that an attempt to eradicate monsters like Hitler unconstitutional? Any arguments that say the capital punishment is unconstitutional is unreasonable. In addition, the alternative punishment, a life sentence, is also unreasonable. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money is wasted every year to pay for prisons. All those wasted dollars are used to feed, house, and clothe CRIMINALS. Considering that most perpetrators of atrocious crimes are middle aged or younger, expect prisons to waste resources on a serial killer for at least 40 years, resources that could go to public education, improving the economy, even to just keeping the streets clean.

3/17/2014
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Marjorie
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY
I THINK DEATH PENALTY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE.

1/24/2014
Maryland
Sarah
Montgomery Village Middle School
I think that the Death Penalty is Unconstitutional. A life sentance would be a much better punishment. The criminals would have to spend the rest of their lives thinking about what they did to get there all the time. They would have to suffer, just as the families of the ones they killed had to! And it would be cheaper, and Death Row is Cruel, very cruel

1/20/2014
Olympia,Washington
Daniel
Komachin Middle School
is this really ALL true?

1/16/2014
taylors, sc
Melissa
Alexander/Eastside
1. i do believe the death penalty is constitutional because is someone has the right to take a life or hurt why wont their life be taken as well. 2 Yes the should but it also depens on why the person is being given the death penalty, the death penalty is appropriate for all crimes. 3. Torture or unfair punishment shouldnt be allowed no dismembering or unhumane ways of punishment. The time period the constitutin was written the death penalty was very common and cruel but how it is carried out now has changed along with our society therefore i believe it is not cruel or unsual punishment.

12/7/2013
Greenville/SC
Sydney Fossing
Alexander/Eastside
1. I think that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it violates the 8th amendment. I think that putting someone to death for their crime, no matter how severe it is, should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. I think that by putting someone to death we are sort of dehumanizing them, we are just discarding them without any consideration of them or their families; we’re treating them like animals. I also personally think that by sentencing them to death we are relieving them of their crimes, if we force them to spend the rest of their life in jail they are forced to think about their actions for the rest of their life. Therefore I do not believe that states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty because I believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

11/26/2013
Greenville/SC
Samantha
Alexander/Eastside High School
1. Yes I think it is constitutional and not cruel or unusual because if that person being sentenced to death has killed someone I think it is a fair punishment,killing innocent people is not okay and the capital punishment is just in certain cases. 2. Yes the states should have the right to carry out the punishment they think is just for retain crimes. 3. I personally believe that if a person is being put to death by the government it should be human and not cruel. It would be bad if the government killed people in bad ways because people would question the death penalty even more. Therefore I think the person should be allowed to at their final goodbyes and die in a humane way.

11/26/2013
Greenville/SC
Samantha
Alexander/Eastside High School
1. Yes,based on the 5th and 14th amendments 2. Yes,based on the horror of some crimes and how frequently it happens 3. I believe it should not cause long lasting pain. The person should be able to say his final goodbyes.

11/25/2013
Taylors/ SC
Dario Simmons
Alexander/ Eastside
1. In certain circumstances, if the criminal is guilty, of age, mentally stable, and has committed a horrendous crime, then I believe the death penalty is necessary. Nowadays, people enjoy being criminals and a trip to jail is like a vacation to them. If the criminal committed a mass murder or tortured someone to death, then it is no question if the penalty should be used. Rapper Chief Keef once stated in a song, “I don’t care ‘bout going to jail, they treat me like heaven there.” This quote shows that people no longer fear jail, so the death penalty may be the only for complete justice. 2. Yes, I think that all U.S. states should carry out the death penalty 3. I don’t believe there should be any restrictions on the death penalty. Even if it is a “cruel or unusual” death, it doesn’t really matter because they are going to die regardless. The criminal should die the same exact way the killed someone.

11/25/2013
Taylors/South Carolina
Cory Sloan
Alexander/Eastside
1. I think that the death penalty is constitutional because I believe that it is not a cruel punishment. Despite the fact that it takes the lives of people, I believe that in most of those capital punishment cases, the person guilty deserves to be killed. Just think of how the loved ones of the dead person feel. They want either that person that did it to be killed by the state or in some cases they take it into their own hands and wind up in jail. I think the death penalty establishes order and is constitutional 2. Yes the states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty because it is the rights of the states to establish their own laws and to decide whether or not they want capital punishment. 3. I think one restriction you could put on the death penalty is that to make sure the person is guilty. I think it would be inhumane if the person killed would have turned out to be innocent.

11/25/2013
Taylors, SC
Connor
Mr. Alexander/ Eastside High School
1.) Is the death penalty constitutional? - Yes, I firmly believe that the death penalty is wholly constitutional. By definition, a felony is punishable by death, and the death penalty is totally legal in these terms. As a somewhat strong textualist, I believe that the death penalty is a legal means of punishment for crimes with serious maliciousness and brutality. 2.) Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? - I believe that the death penalty should be a federal law. Although many laws in the United States are state laws, I think that such a drastic penalty for crime as death should be a national law, not a law chosen by people in different areas. People in one state should not be punished worse than people in another. 3.) What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? - I don’t think that any real restrictions need to be imposed on the death penalty, besides making sure it is wholly fair and absolutely humane. No crime, no matter how violent, should be returned with another death of as much violence.

11/25/2013
taylors sc
JoAnna
Mr Alexander/Eastside high School
1. I do not belive the death penalty is constitutional, becausae in my persepective people should have live with the guilt of the crime they committed. 2. States should not be permitted to carry out the death pentaly because the state is under the federal court and should not be given that amount of authority. 3. I believe that the practice violates constitutional rights "cruel and unusual" because the state should not have a say in a persons life about death. Other punishments such as life in prison are more effective on a person and what they have done.

11/24/2013
Greenville, Sc
Mary Iris DuBose
Alexander/Eastside Highschool
1. I believe the death penalty is constitutional because it is based on the 5th and 14th amendments. 2. I believe states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty based on whole extreme/severe the crime was and under the voting of the majority of the jury. 3.The kinds of restrictions that should be imposed are: they way the victim is killed should not cause long-lasting pain, they should not be treated any worse than another victim ( beatings by the men running the jail, just because they will die soon etc.), the men should have a short period to see their family. 3. (continued) This practice doesn't violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment because it is fair and equal if someone takes a life, there needs to be some sort of payment for that, or everyone would do as they please with no severe consequences, if all men are in a sense " created equal" they should be treated equal.

11/24/2013
Greenville, Sc
Mary Iris DuBose
Alexander/Eastside Highschool
1. I believe the death penalty is constitutional because it is based on the 5th and 14th amendments. 2. I believe states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty based on whole extreme/severe the crime was and under the voting of the majority of the jury. 3.The kinds of restrictions that should be imposed are: they way the victim is killed should not cause long-lasting pain, they should not be treated any worse than another victim ( beatings by the men running the jail, just because they will die soon etc.), the men should have a short period to see their family. 3. (continued) This practice doesn't violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment because it is fair and equal if someone takes a life, there needs to be some sort of payment for that, or everyone would do as they please with no severe consequences, if all men are in a sense " created equal" they should be treated equal.

11/22/2013
Greenville, SC
Michelle
T. Alexander
1.I believe the death penalty is unconstitutional. Killing someone is in any way you look it morally wrong, even if the person did a horrendous crime like killing someone. Sentencing a person to death something that cannot be taken back once the person is killed, and there is no possible way to know if the person accused of the crime actually did commit it. There have already been many cases where a person that received the death penalty was actually innocent. Plus people actually guilty of the crime get the easy way out of this world. The person would die many times without reflecting upon their actions. 2.I believe the death penalty should not be carried out in any state. It is too of a definite and permanent decision that can never be taken back once the person is dead. 3.This practice does violate the constitutional right to protect against cruel and unusual punishment. Since there is a possibility of person being innocent of the crime yet charged of committing the act. Then it is too cruel of a punishment to give to that person, which violates the constitutional right.

11/22/2013
Taylors/SC
Jennifer Nunez
Alexander/EastsideHighSchool
Is the death penalty constitutional? I believe the death penalty is constitutional because each state has the right to choose whether the death penalty should be permitted in their state. As a developmentalist, there is nowhere in the constitution saying that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? First of all, there are federal offenses which are punishable by death. They have absolutely nothing to do with state law and then there are state statutes that carry the death penalty. These have absolutely nothing to do with Federal Law. Yes states have the right to choose whether or not they want the death penalty, I believe letting states have the option is right. Because each state has a different mindset, it is fair for the federal to let the state the options whether or not the death can be permitted What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Explain your answers. You have to say more than yes or no. if restrictions should be imposed, I believe that no one under 21 should be tried for the death penalty. I believe this because no one still considered a teen should be tried for the death penalty. Since there is nowhere in the constitution that states the death penalty as unconstitutional, there is no way it could be considered as a cruel or unusual punishment. No one wants the criminal to commit the crime for a second time. Sometimes people tie in their morals and religion when talking about the death penalty. I believe this act is fair and just and no one really knows how they feel about it until it happens to them or a close relative.

11/22/2013
s.c.
Spencer
TAexander/Eastside high Schhol
1. Yes, the death penalty is constitutional. The constitution says you cannot use cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is not cruel or unusual. If the constitution was intended that the death penalty was cruel or unusual the framers would have said so when it was written. 2. Yes, the states should be able to carry out the death penalty. The states decided the punishment for crimes and should be able to decide I the death penalty is necessary in for the crime. 3. The death penalty should be restricted to only certain crimes and to certain severities of the crimes. Someone should not get the death penalty for a petty crime but if he or she commits a serious felony the can receive the death penalty.

11/22/2013
Greenville, SC
Austin
Alexanter
The death penalty is constitutional, if you look at the time the constitution was written the death penalty was the sentence for all felony offences, also if you look in the constitution it says nowhere that the death penalty is not permitted. 2. States should be allowed to carry out the death penalty if they wish, if the crime calls for it. It is cheaper than keeping prisoners alive in prison, and if a jury decides that the penalty of their crime is death it should be allowed to happen. 3. Restrictions should be imposed because we can’t just go around everyone for their crimes, the death penalty should be reserved for people who have committed the worst crimes like killing someone. This is not a violation of protection of cruel and unusual punishment, because at the time the constitution was written the death penalty was the only sentence for all felonies’ so when the founding fathers where writing the constitution they did not intend the death penalty to fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

11/22/2013
Taylors/SC
Rebecca
Alexander/Eastside High School
1. Is the death penalty constitutional? The death penalty is constitutional because it makes sense to punish someone who has committed a horrible crime. They knew what they were doing and they should have thought about the consequences beforehand. 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? I don’t think that every state should be forced to carry out the death penalty. I believe that each state should make their own decision as to whether or not they want to have the death penalty legal. 3. What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Restrictions as to the way they should die should not exceed the five original ways that already exist. Things such as stabbing and beating to death should not be allowed. They should go quickly with a little pain as possible. Otherwise it would be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? No this practice does not violate the protection against cruel and unusual punishment as long as the people on death row are not taken violently such as stabbing and beating to death

11/22/2013
Greenville, SC
Bradley
Alexander/Eastside
1. Is the death penalty constitutional? Yes because it is not considered cruel and unusual punishment for severe crimes. 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? Yes because it is not listed in the Constitution and therefore is a state’s right. 3. What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Explain your answers. You have to say more than yes or no. The states should be able to control any restrictions put on the death penalty, and it does not violate the constitution because it is not considered cruel and unusual punishment.

11/22/2013
Taylors/SC
Laura
TAlexander/EastsideHighSchool
1.To an extent I believe it is not constitutional. Crimes that affect a population of people, bringing about death and inhumane treatment like genocide or concentration camps; or crimes that cause world conflict, a world dispute, or a world war deserve the death penalty. However, crimes much less severe and absolute do not surmount to the degree of capital punishment. For, how will a murderer truly feel the effects of his or her actions if he or she is dead? Far greater punishment can be found in keeping the murderer or dangerous criminal in jail for a life sentence so that they can feel the pain their actions have caused in others. Also, states’ governments have many different views on the offenses that deserve the death penalty, and they change yearly. So how can the death penalty be constitutionally permitted if not all states have the same basis for it? Lives are at stake with this kind of instability. 2.No, the states should not be allowed to carry out the death penalty. The capital punishment should be reserved for severe crimes like genocide, mass murder, or world strife. 3.There should be no restrictions because states should not be permitted to carry out the death penalty. The practice violates the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. For, the regulations of the death penalty: the offenses that deserve it and the methods to carry it out, vary from state to state, making the rights of people either restricted or not depending on what state they reside in.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Ashley
T Alexander/ Eastside High School
1. I do not believe the death penalty is constitutional because the 8th amendment does not make it clear for what qualifies as “cruel and unusual punishment”. This can result in so many people being on death row. However, I do believe that if someone has lived their life murdering multiple numbers of people, then they deserve to be punished in another way. 2. I do not think states should carry out the death penalty because I think they will try to just kill someone to get it over with and not really examine all of the evidence and circumstances. States are more focused on saving money than lives and the death penalty is cheap. If anything, cases dealing with the death penalty should be taken to the federal government. 3. Well, I don’t agree that the death penalty is right. I don’t think it solves anything or proves a point for anyone. I think it is just cruel and sick.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Sydney
Smit
1. I believe the death penalty is constitutional. It is not ethical or righteous but it is constitutional. 2. The states should not have the power to carry out the death penalty. Taking a life is a serious thing to do. It ought to be taken very seriously and carried out only after much consideration by the best judges in the country. 3. Only federal courts should be allowed to carry out the death penalty. If states believe someone should be put to death then the case should be heard by the federal court. Only murderers who killed with no motive or killed multiple people should be eligible for capital punishment.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Timberlin
T. Alexander
No, I don’t think the Death Penalty is constitutional. Yes, I know that person killed somebody but using the death penalty for them and that means you just did the same thing. Does that mean you need to choose how you die next? No it’s a difference right. I feel that if they murder someone let them stay with that guilt until it is their time to actually die. Do not give them the satisfaction of killing them for killing that’s too easy. When you use the death penalty think about what it brings it brings grief and sometimes it doesn’t bring the closure that people are looking for. The states have their own decisions and whether they use it is up to them but I don’t think they should. Then again that’s more money going into jails to hold all those prisoners. The ways they use to kill the person are cruel and unusual. You want to gas people, hang them, injection of drugs, and just shooting the person.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Devan
talexander/Eastside High School
1. The death penalty is constitutional because there is nothing in the constitution stating that the death penalty cannot be used. Though I don’t agree with it, there’s nothing constitutionally wrong with the death penalty which is why some states still use it today. 2. I don’t think states should be able to carry out the death penalty. It doesn’t seem right, in my opinion, to kill someone as a punishment for killing other people. You are doing the exact thing to someone as they did to someone else. It’s wrong in my opinion to kill someone. I think people who are sentenced to the death penalty should instead be sentenced to a life in solitude. Although the Constitution says nothing about it being wrong, and the 10th amendment gives states the rights to carry out their own laws, in my own opinion, it is wrong and states shouldn’t be able to kill someone as a punishment. 3. The idea of cruel and unusual punishment can be resolved and numerous different ways than the death penalty, but if the death penalty must be used I think the restrictions should be major. I think the death penalty should only be used if the convicted person has killed more than 2 people in a heinous and insane way or if they kill children or infants. If the convicted person has something wrong such as retardation or down syndrome, etc., they shouldn’t be put to death or if the person is crazy they should be put in a facility to help them.

11/22/2013
Greenville/SC
Nicholas
Mr. Alexander/Eastside High School
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional becuase it is not cruel punishment but rather just punishment for a horrible crime. The states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty because it is permitted/approved by the constitution. As long as the government continues to sentence the death penalty to only those who have committed a serious crime and have had a fair and fully completed trial, there should be no restrictions imposed.

11/22/2013
Taylors/SC
Zach White
T. Alexander
1. Yes. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the death penalty. Nothing about the death penalty is wrong. Capital Punishment is constitutional because the 8th Amendment touches on cruel and unusual punishment and killing someone in an organized, non-cruel way is not wrong. 2. States should be able to carry out the death penalty. The 10thAmendment allows the states to carry out their own laws not covered in the Constitution. With that being said, why should capital punishment be any different? They states should have votes for the death penalty and allow the people in that state decide. 3. The only restrictions there should be is not allowing injection. The injection is not always lethal, thus making the person suffer. If capital punishment is going to be carried out, it should be a quick, non-painful death. Lethal injection is the only restriction that should be imposed because of the 8th Amendment.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Kenny
Alexander/Eastside
1. I think that the death penalty is not constitutional because I believe that it is a cruel punishment. Despite the degree of the crime, I think that taking a criminal’s life is cruel; they should face their punishment by living in a prison rather than having an easy way out. 2. I think that states should not be permitted to carry out the death penalty because I personally believe it is unconstitutional. 3. I think the death penalty is immoral and violates the 8th amendment’s protection against cruel punishment. Although in previous decades it was acceptable, I think that the “unusual” aspect should conform to contemporary society, and I should be considered unusual now.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
James
T Alexander
1. Is the death penalty constitutional? No, killing someone who may actually be innocent, or someone who murdered a person isn’t right. A life for a life is still a life lost 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? No, they should have their own choice in the matter as to whether or not they should; there is nothing in the Constitution that says they should have to. 3. What kinds of restrictions, if any should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? There should be restrictions on the death penalty, and how to use it. Electric chairs are close to cruel and unusual punishments, seeing as it might not always kill them, but lethal injection and firing squad are perfectly fine.

11/22/2013
Taylors, South Carolina
Nick Sands
T. Alexander/ Eastside High School
1. The death penalty is constitutional because it was accepted by the framers of the constitution and when the eighth amendment was ratified, capital punishment was a common sanction in every state and still is today. 2. Yes, I believe so because anyone who has committed such a crime that is brutal and gory deserves to face the chance of the death penalty. This should also stand as a warning to other criminals out there that they may not want to do such a thing. 3. I believe that death penalty should exclude any methods that include torture, such as the gas chamber. The death should be quick and painless. I also believe that if the attempt to kill the criminal the first time does not succeed, then the person should face life in prison instead of still having to face death.

11/22/2013
Greenville, SC
Maycee
Alexander
1. I believe the death penalty is constitutional because it is a fair form of justice. However, when the death penalty clearly violates the Constitution's statement that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment, then it is unconstitutional. 2. States should be permitted to carry out the death penalty because powers that are not reserved for federal government are given to the states by the 10th amendment. 3. Restrictions should be placed that prohibit the death penalty being given to people with mental issues. This practice does not violate the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment because mentally disabled persons cant be accused for their unintentional actions.

11/22/2013
Taylors/ SC
Alex Green
Mr. Alexander/ Eastside High School
Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? Yes the death penalty is constitutional; this way is the only way to punish those who committed such disturbing crimes. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? Yes, they should have the final decision to decide if they want their state to have this punishment. What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Every person is innocent until proven guilty and the restrictions on deciding whether or not a persons crime is up for the death penalty, is right where it should be in society today. If a person is proven guilty for the heinous crimes to put them to death, then yes they deserve the death penalty and more.

11/22/2013
Greer, South Carolina
Caity
Mr. Alexander/Eastside High School
1. Is the death penalty constitutional? I do not believe in the death penalty and I do not believe that it is constitutional. I agree when others say, “Why are we killing them when they are here for murder?” Although I do think the criminals deserve punishment, I do not agree that the death penalty is the right one. The 8th Amendment says that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment but for some reason the death penalty is not considered cruel and unusual. I believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual and that is why I do not think the death penalty is constitutional. 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? Since I do not agree in the death penalty, I do not think that states should be able to carry it out. In any case, I think that the federal court should be the ones to carry out the death penalty. I feel like state courts aren’t as cautious about it as the federal courts would be when it came to the death penalty. The federal court would ensure that the criminal is 100% guilty for their crime and I feel like the state courts would not try as hard when it came to proving the criminal guilty or not. 3. Does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? I do believe that the death penalty violates the constitutional rights to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Why would we murder when the reason they are in trouble is because of murder? Then they have their families there to watch them die and that is extremely cruel. The worst part is that they also have the victim’s family there, watching the criminal die and enjoying it.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Cole Allender
Mr. Alexander Eastside High School
1. Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? It is Constitutional because it is not considered to be cruel or unusual punishment and, they are not being deprived of due process of law, just being punished according to the measure of the crime. 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the Death Penalty? I think that states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty, but only if the person deserves it. The measure of their penalty should be based on the measure of their crime; nothing more and nothing less. 3. What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the Constitutional rights to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? The restrictions imposed should be ones that are based on the requirements for a death penalty. In other words, there needs to be a basis to decide what crime or crimes are considered bad enough to reach the point of the death penalty.

11/22/2013
Greer/SC
Cody
Travis Alexander/ Eastside High School
1. Is the death penalty constitutional? • Yes because at the time the Constitution was written, the death penalty was a form of punishment and wasn’t considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? • Yes because under the 10th Amendment, powers not reserved for the federal government is reserved for the states and therefore each state should be able to carry out the death penalty if they so choose. 3. What kind of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? • Restrictions on the death penalty should include the mentally handicapped individuals who cannot be wholly responsible for their actions. This practice does not violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment because if a person has mental restrictions, they cannot be held accountable for all of their actions.

11/22/2013
Taylors, SC
Matt
Mr. Alexander/ Eastside High School
Is the death penalty constitutional? Yes the death penalty is constitutional in my eyes. To me this penalty for extremely heinous crimes does not classify as cruel or unusual. When criminals commit appalling and sickening crimes they deserve this penalty. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? Yes, I believe that the states should have the power to decide whether or not they wish to carry out this penalty throughout their state. What kinds of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? I feel that the one restriction that should be placed is that the criminal can not be tried for death unless the victim(s) were killed. If the victim(s) did not die but the crime was still extremely heinous I feel that the criminal should be sentenced to life without parole. I feel that if the criminal takes a life that they do not deserve to live after committing such an appalling crime

11/22/2013
Greenville, SC
Cody
Alexander
1. Is the death penalty constitutional? • Yes because at the time the Constitution was written, the death penalty was a form of punishment and wasn’t considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 2. Should states be permitted to carry out the death penalty? • Yes because under the 10th Amendment, powers not reserved for the federal government is reserved for the states and therefore each state should be able to carry out the death penalty if they so choose. 3. What kind of restrictions, if any, should be imposed? Or does the practice violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment? • Restrictions on the death penalty should include the mentally handicapped individuals who cannot be wholly responsible for their actions. This practice does not violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment because if a person has mental restrictions, they cannot be held accountable for all of their actions.

11/22/2013
Greenville, SC
Daniel Moody
Alexander Eastside High School
1. Yes, the death penalty is constitutional because the choice to allow it lies with the states. 2. Yes, because the federal government gave the states the right to allow the death penalty with the 10th Amendment. 3. There shouldn’t be restrictions because a person’s mental capacity, history, and other factors they should not receive special treatment. If the crime is bad enough that criminal should receive the death penalty.

11/22/2013
Greer/ Sc
Lane
Alexander/ Eastside High
1. I believe that the death penalty is constitutional because I do not think that it is a cruel or unusual punishment. If you have been given the death penalty, it is very likely that you have done something to deserve it. 2. Yes, I think that states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty because in some cases it is necessary as a punishment. 3. If they truly do not deserve the penalty, or if they are mentally ill. There are certain circumstances where the punishment does not agree with the circumstances of the crime.

11/22/2013
Greenville, South Carolina
Ryan
Alexander/Eastside
1. Yes the death penalty is constitutional, it may not be applicable in all situations but it is constitutional. 2. Yes the federal government gave the states the right to use the death penalty because some crimes are that terrible 3. The governor or a high government official should have to approve it it may not just be sentenced by a judge. It does not violate cruel and unusual punishments because there are some situations that call for it.

11/19/2013
Greer, SC
Kamille
Travis Alexander Eastside High Sshool
1. I do not believe the death penalty is constitutional. The 8th amendment says there should be no excessive bails put in place and all punishments should not be cruel or unusual. They do not specifically say what is considered cruel or unusual, but I do not believe killing someone, taking someone’s life, is constitutional unless they have killed someone who is a child or the crime was just very horrific. 2. I don’t think states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty because to me it should be completely done away with. The death penalty is not right, it may be cheaper, but is saving money better than saving a life? No. 3. The death penalty does violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment because killing someone for killing someone teaches the murderer nothing. It creates more violence and obviously doesn't scare other people away from killing someone. The point is to make sure murderers are not out on the streets and are not going to be able to kill someone again. Just keep those people in jail for a life sentence, they won’t be able to kill anyone, and everyone outside of the prisons will be safe.

2/27/2013
New Milford, PA
Elena
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment.” This is our eighth amendment. The death penalty should be considered constitutional. In the case Roper v. Simmons from 2005, Christopher Simmons was convicted of the death penalty for murdering a woman because “she saw his face” as he was breaking and entering. He was seventeen at the time he committed the crime but was tried at the age of eighteen so he was tried as an adult. Simmons had confessed to the crime and had given the authorities a reenactment of the entire crime scene. For someone like Christopher Simmons who is even willing to give a reenactment, should be put to death. It amazes some people what others can really do. So how is it fair that someone can kill another person because of a reason that’s uncalled for? That’s because it’s not!

2/26/2013
New Milford, PA
Dakota
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is extremely primitive, unconstitutional, and definitely a poor excuse of a way of dealing with crime. The death penalty is flawed for many reasons; there is literally a plethora of accounts why the death penalty is insane. It’s cruel, morally incorrect, and it shows truly how rudimentary our justice system is; how a large portion of society support a relation to violence to punish a “criminal”. The death penalty obviously hasn’t deterred anyone from committing murder, considering there are still people that perpetuate this or acts like is every day. The death penalty has accounted for the wrongful of an estimated 121 people out of 982 since 1973. It’s been studied and said that 1 out of every 8 of these people, of the citizens that have been executed as a whole should never of been convicted. If there is any chance, any chance at all that an innocent person could be killed due to this flawed system we have, it should be abolished. It is pretty apparent, that at least one innocent person has died because of this, which I find appalling. It is absolutely ridiculous to deem necessary a system that murders people for punishment. On a moral standpoint, there are zero reasons why morally the death penalty can be constitutional. The death penalty punishes a human being for “murdering” another human being, and then the government orders the person who killed to be put to death. So, in essence that state is killing someone for killing someone. If society deems that “killing is wrong”, then why are the federal and state governments authorized to murder “criminals”? The whole lesson, the whole process loses its meaning completely when a hypocritical action such as that takes place. The law states (roughly) that killing someone is illegal and the constitution is the “supreme law of the land”, so why exactly is it acceptable for us as a society to allow the government to use murder as a punishment for a crime. It really is, murder.

2/26/2013
New Milford, PA
Patrick
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty should not be accepted by society. Killing someone does not teach anyone a lesson. The death penalty is unconstitutional, an alternative sentence of a lifelong sentence of solitary confinement should be proposed. The death penalty has not been proven to deter murder. In fact, states that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than the states that do. The death penalty is not a just response for the taking of a life, it only adds to the amount of people’s lives taken at the hands of others. “Capital punishment alone imposes an irrevocable sentence, once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if later he/she is found innocent.” There is a great amount of evidence that indicates that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 121 people on death row have been released from it after being found innocent, however in that same time period more than 982 people have been executed. That fact alone should make have one wonder how many of those people could have been innocent. Our capital punishment system is unreliable and something needs to be done about it. It is one thing if the murderer is actually found guilty, but where is the justice for the people who really were innocent and had their lives cut short because of a flawed system?

2/26/2013
New Milford, PA
Devan
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
I believe that the death penalty should be aloud because it saves us a lot of money in the long run. Keeping people in jail that have a life sentence means the taxpayers are paying for them to stay in jail. They are also paying for them to get medical treatments if needed. There is an argument that the death penalty should not be in place because some people should just serve life sentences because the death penalty is not right. It is not that everyone should have the death penalty, just for the ones who committed a serious crime like extreme murder should have the death penalty. This is why the death penalty should be allowed.

2/26/2013
New Milford, PA
Elena
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment.” This is our eighth amendment. The death penalty should be considered constitutional. In the case Roper v. Simmons from 2005, Christopher Simmons was convicted of the death penalty for murdering a woman because “she saw his face” as he was breaking and entering. He was seventeen at the time he committed the crime but was tried at the age of eighteen so he was tried as an adult. Simmons had confessed to the crime and had given the authorities a reenactment of the entire crime scene. For someone like Christopher Simmons who is even willing to give a reenactment, should be put to death. It amazes some people what others can really do. So how is it fair that someone can kill another person because of a reason that’s uncalled for? That’s because it’s not!

2/26/2013
New Milford, PA
Shanyn
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
Although the Supreme Court has taken steps to make the death penalty a just part of the judicial system, it still has too many errors and is not entirely effective in its purpose. The system of capital punishment is hypocritical, as it punishes a person for killing another, by killing them. If any error is made and an innocent person is executed, there is no way to make amends. In addition to the execution of innocent person, the person guilty is able to go unpunished, as putting a person on death row closes the case. A study shows that at least 121 people accused of capital crimes have been released from death row after their innocence was proven. In addition to this statistic, there has been a study by Columbia University Law that ? of capital trials have had serious errors . The Constitution and law system was made to protect the innocent, but the death penalty goes against this policy that the government is based on. The error rate is too high of a risk to be a just part of government in a society so far beyond “an eye for an eye”.

2/25/2013
New Milford, PA
Walker
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
For the welfare of society, most people would have a strong interest in preventing murder. This also acts a deterrent for most criminals, making them think twice before committing to this life of crime. This system of thinking proves itself through the results recorded that for every guilty inmate executed, seven people who are innocent or are deterred from doing crime are saved. These results are hard to record due to the fact that the death penalty is rarely used these days, suggesting that the system works. Secondly, people fear death more than anything, and fear death inflicted by the law even more so. In the natural order of things, fear equals deterrence. This includes deterring future murderers, as well as inmates already in jail from hurting innocent civilians. Besides, if death doesn’t deter people, than what will? Finally, in a manner of speaking, it deters murderers being executed. In one example, you put robbers in a prison to prevent future robbing. Inmates are executed to prevent future murders. This, in turn, prevents future crimes.

2/25/2013
New Milford, PA
Dylan
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is a constitutional punishment and it should be that way. The death penalty is allowed only in 33 states but there are statistical facts to back up the fact that the death penalty is worth it. it can prevent future deaths and keep the justice system in balance. Although it has its downsides, it can have many positive aspects behind it. The death penalty can prevent future deaths by deterring criminals to stop killing. A statistic to back this up would be that 7 lives are spared every time someone is killed using the death penalty. The death penalty is the only penalty to deter prisoners that have a life sentence not to kill while they are imprisoned. If they are dead than they can not commit another murder. although this is a positive fact there are downsides to the argument. The capital punishment is proven unreliable. Two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. Since 1973, one hundred and twenty one people have been released from death row after evidence of innocence. for every eight people executed one has been proven innocent. Capital punishment helps keep the justice system in balance. When someone takes a life it is only fair to take his life. “In 1991 a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was the mutilated and killed." The killer should not sit in prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, and family visits regularly. The death penalty should be a constitutional action. IT can prevent more deaths occurring and it keeps the Justice system in balance. Although it has its downsides by sometimes being inaccurate, some criminals just need to die.

2/25/2013
New Milford, PA
Dylan
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is a constitutional punishment and it should be that way. The death penalty is allowed only in 33 states but there are statistical facts to back up the fact that the death penalty is worth it. it can prevent future deaths and keep the justice system in balance. Although it has its downsides, it can have many positive aspects behind it. The death penalty can prevent future deaths by deterring criminals to stop killing. A statistic to back this up would be that 7 lives are spared every time someone is killed using the death penalty. The death penalty is the only penalty to deter prisoners that have a life sentence not to kill while they are imprisoned. If they are dead than they can not commit another murder. although this is a positive fact there are downsides to the argument. The capital punishment is proven unreliable. Two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. Since 1973, one hundred and twenty one people have been released from death row after evidence of innocence. for every eight people executed one has been proven innocent. Capital punishment helps keep the justice system in balance. When someone takes a life it is only fair to take his life. “In 1991 a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was the mutilated and killed." The killer should not sit in prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, and family visits regularly. The death penalty should be a constitutional action. IT can prevent more deaths occurring and it keeps the Justice system in balance. Although it has its downsides by sometimes being inaccurate, some criminals just need to die.

2/25/2013
New Milford, PA
Megan
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is a punishment that has been around for centuries. Our society has kept it around that long because it has the lowest tolerance for murder. The death penalty is the strongest message to prevent murder from happening. For years, people such as criminologists have done studies analyzing the likelihood of murders being committed with the possibility of being executed. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich found results stating that for every inmate who was executed, seven lives were spared because others were discouraged from committing murder. In this life, people fear nothing more than death. Ernest Van Den Haag concluded that nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death from committing murder. A life sentence is less feared than a death sentence. People against the death penalty claim that some innocent people have been put to their deaths when there has never been proof of an innocent man being executed. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims whose lives are at stake.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
Morgan
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
‘Nor cruel and unusual punishment’ is violated each time someone is injected with injustice. The death penalty is given to those who commit capital punishment. This country has been debating over the death penalty for many years. The question for the court is whether or not this form of punishment is constitutional. This sentence is not to even the worst of offenders.To determine whether or not one is given the death penalty, it is often based on irrational factors. Such factors include the race of the defendant, the quality of the defendant’s counsel, and where the crime was committed. Studies show that race is a 82% influence on the outcome of a case. It is more likely that a black defendant who killed a white victim will be given the death penalty. Additionally, it is said that since 1976, about 200 black defendants have been convicted and murdered for a death of a white person, only 12 have been murdered for a death of a black victim. The quality of counsel can be a factor in whether a person receives the death penalty. A defendant who has an attorney appointed by the court is more likely to be represented incompetently. Ultimately, the defendant has already been given the penalty once he is appointed an attorney by the state. Lastly, the factor of where the crime was committed determines how the defendant is punished. Some states do not even have the death penalty. Therefore, geography can determine whether or not someone is sentenced to die. The death penalty is unconstitutional because it is arbitrarily administered, and therefore, unjust.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
Samantha
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional as well as unjust. Both the argument of deterrent as well as retribution are not right. The idea of deterrence states that the death penalty will prevent murders from happening in the future. Many people would argue that a murderer will not murder someone because most people fear death. While this may be true, criminals do not regularly weigh their options before committing the crime of choice. A more just approach could be sending someone to prison for life. Similarly, in regards to retribution, some may say that a just society requires the death penalty for taking a life. This is more commonly known as “an eye for an eye” to people. This idea is used as a type of revenge on a murderer. This idea is not used in other areas of crime. When thinking of rape or torture, we do not react by inflicting that type of crime on the criminal as punishment for their crime. As stated above, criminals in this category may be sentenced to life in prison instead. Killing someone for killing somebody else is an incredibly vengeful act. Vengeance is an action of emotion and has no place in a justice system. The death penalty is bad public policy and is unconstitutional as well as unjust.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
Ernie
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional in today's society. It uses punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Society has the highest interest in preventing murder and the death penalty is the strongest punishment available to deter murder. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, then potential killers might think twice. Murderers should have punishment that fits the crime, an “eye for an eye” or “a life for a life”. Taking a killer's life restores the balance in communities and allows society to show, convincingly, that murder is an intolerable action and will not be tolerated. So in conclusion , the death penalty is a constitutional punishment.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
TeeJay
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is both constitutional and good public policy. It’s considered constitutional because it leaves room for the appeals process and certain restrictions. Arguments made against the death penalty would be that it’s unconstitutional because there is always a chance that innocent people can potentially be sentenced to death. Regarding my first statement, there are chances for appeals and also certain guidelines that have to be followed and the only way an innocent person can be sentenced to death row is if that person was wrongfully accused or the jury or the judge makes a mistake. In 1991, a woman was forced to watch as a man murdered her baby. The woman argued saying that retribution is deserved for what he did to her. The death penalty is constitutional and is good for situations like this in which criminals feel like it is okay to take the life of adults or children and live the rest of their life in prison. The day the government does away with the death penalty is the day that someone crosses the line and everyone is going to want it back.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
George
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional, and as long as the prisoners are rightfully guilty of murder, the government should have the power to sentence them to death. Someone who is able to take another life shouldn't be allowed to just sit in jail for a life sentence. He should feel the same pain as he caused the victim. The life sentence is better because the prisoners get three meals a day and a hour of free time while other people live on the streets and get barely any food. Murder is an unforgivable crime and the only way to pay for what the killers did is getting the death penalty.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
Elizabeth
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
There is much controversy on whether or not the death penalty is constitutional in the United States. The death penalty contradicts the clause in the 8th amendment about cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty also runs the risk of the state killing someone who is later found innocent. Even if the innocent person is not put through the death penalty before they are decided innocent, they and their family would have been put through all of the stress, hassle, and worry that would go along with it. The death penalty could also been seen as hypocritical. The government is murdering someone to punish them for murder. The justice system should not be based on vengeance. Altogether, the death penalty is not a constitutional way to punish for or prevent murder.

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
Logan
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional. The eighth amendment protects citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. That means it prohibits any kind of unusual punishment, such as the torture of U.S. citizens. Inhumane prison conditions violate the amendment as well, even though the conditions aren’t part of the official sentence. Eighteen states, including the District of Columbia, as today, do not have the death penalty. Overall, it is shown that deterrence does not have as great as an impact as it is meant to have. The death penalty is not only unconstitutional, but ineffective public policy. The death penalty does not deter crime. The purpose of deterrence is to establish clear consequences for criminal activities, which is supposed to make people think twice before engaging in those activities. There is no specific proof that capital punishment has lowered the rate of crime. Death penalty states as a group, do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. The U.S., compared to countries like it, has a higher murder rate than Canada and Europe, which don’t have the death penalty. It is also shown that most crimes are committed during moments of great emotional distress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Recent studies done by criminological societies found that eighty four percent of experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated that any deterrent effect from death penalty. Considering this, the death penalty is no more of a deterrent than a sentence to life in prison. “If deterrence were truly effective, one would expect rates to drop where punishment is severe. If however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.”

2/24/2013
New Milford, PA
Kelsi
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty has been a controversial topic in the United States for many years. The debate is whether or not it is to be considered as constitutional or unconstitutional. We should not take away someone's life just because they took away someone else’s. If you kill someone for doing the same to someone else, that would just be contradicting the law, and if we were to kill someone who was completely innocent, it would make our justice system unjust. The justice system is supposed to be honorable, but by killing someone, it doesn’t make the system very honorable.

2/24/2013
New Milford
Charlotte
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty should be illegal to avoid the execution of innocent defendants. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There’s considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death.”Since 1973 at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed.” The capital punishment system is unreliable. “A recent study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors.” Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system.” Recently journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.”

2/22/2013
Blue Ridge High School
Chris
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional, and it is effective. With the death penalty in play, potential murderers at least might think about what could happen if they get caught. With death hanging over their heads, they might re-think what they are going to do. According to deathpenaltycurriculuminfo.org, “The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England.” http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm For nearly two centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized that capital punishment is not unconstitutional. The death penalty is a deterrent against future murders because it makes them think about their consequences and according to the Supreme Court, constitutional.

2/22/2013
New Milford, PA
Sierra
Ms Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is an ongoing controversial issue. Some people may believe that it is constitutional while others believe it is unconstitutional. The death penalty is unconstitutional because it is violating the eighth amendment ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”. The government’s job is to enforce the Constitution; the death penalty is hypocritical since the government is killing someone while enforcing laws against murder. Also, both states and countries that do not have a death penalty have a lower criminal homicide rate than states and countries that do. The death penalty should not be allowed under our Constitution.

2/22/2013
New Milford, PA
Autumn
Ms Ross/ Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is good public policy and it is constitutional. If the death penalty was enforced, it would prevent future murders. As a deterrent, the death penalty is effective because it cause a potential murderer to think twice before taking a life. It also does not violate the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”. In the case Gregg vs. Georgia, the Court decided that the new death penalty statutes were constitutional. As long as it is applied fairly, the death penalty is constitutional.

2/22/2013
New Milford, PA
Mike
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is good public policy. The death penalty shows future murderers what could happen if they do decide to go out and kill someone out of anger. The death penalty has spared lives according to Isaac Ehlich. Erlich employed a new kind of analysis in 1973 which showed that for every person that was executed seven lives were spared. Also if the death penalty stayed in place, it would keep some people from killing. The death penalty would keep people from murdering another person because many people fear death. The death penalty should stay an intimidation factor of knowing if they kill they would also be killed.

2/22/2013
New Milford, PA
Dakota
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional and good public policy. A person who has committed a serious crime, they sometimes get the death penalty as their punishment. The death penalty helps balance out society, creates closure, and even helps promote societal values. How it helps balance out society is it takes the ‘bad’ people away from the ‘good.’ It helps people feel safe. It also helps with closure for the victims' families. The death penalty is a just punishment for murder in the first degree. Most people look at it as in a life for a life, or even eye for an eye. Depends on how you look at it.

2/22/2013
New Milford, Pa
Rebecca
Ms. Ross
About three thousand two hundred people in thirty-six states are awaiting execution. Most likely because they are convicted of murder. Some of these defendants are not the worst offenders but might just have the fewest resources to defend themselves. Our laws and criminal justice systems should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate complete respect for life. Not lead us to violence. The Columbia University Law school found that two thirds of all capital punishment contained serious errors. The main problem with the death penalty is that you can’t amend a mistake. This could lead to innocent people to getting punished for crimes that they didn't commit that cannot be taken back. Capital punishment is a violation of the constitution because it supports violence, and punishes innocent and poor people.

2/22/2013
New Milford, PA
Kacy
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death sentence should be legal but it needs to be strictly regulated by the government and the public. the government needs to go through all tests and procedures to ensure that the person is responsible for the murder. The death penalty helps deter murders, and brings closure to devastated families. The death penalty is final and if there is a mistake made in the courtroom after the convicted has been sentenced there is no changing the fact that the person is already dead. A recent study says that ? of all capital trials contain serious errors; some that may changed the outcome of trial completely. This is why the trials need to be publicized. If someone is being put up for trial pertaining to the death penalty and they are not guilty, there may be someone who knows that the person is innocent. This brings in the chance to collect new evidence that may have been overlooked before; like someone seeing something fishy that day, and not even knowing there was a trial going on for it. For every eight people sentenced to death they have found one person that should have never been convicted in the first place. There was a recent case where journalism students were assigned to investigate the case about a man being scheduled for execution, and the students discovered that the man was indeed innocent. The man was released, the real killer was found, and the innocent man was spared in the acts of concerned citizens. Death penalty helps bring peace and closure to the family that a murderer’s hand has brought tragedy upon. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and shows that murder is intolerable. Many people are scared of dying, and society knows this. The death penalty is used in some ways to scare people into staying straight and thinking about the consequences that may follow a major crime such as murder. In closing, the death penalty is constitutional and a just punishment for murder but needs to be administered fairly.

2/22/2013
New Milford, PA
Adam
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
Many people have different views on the death penalty. Some think it is very wrong and some think it is a good thing. The death penalty is constitutional because it prevents future murders,it is used fairly, and finally,if you take another life, yours should not be spared. The death penalty is good public policy because it prevents future murders.For example, if murders are sentenced to death and executed, future murders will think again before killing. The reason is that they don’t want to die. Another way that it prevents future murders is because states with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. The death penalty is constitutional because it is used fairly. For example, even though the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not mean that everyone should be spared. Another example is that the death penalty is applied to whites and blacks equally. This can be proven because in the United States more whites are on death row than blacks. The final reason that the death penalty is constitutional is because if you take another life yours should not be spared. The only way to restore justice to society after a murder is if the murders life is taken. Another way to look at it is although the victim’s family can not be restored to the way before the the crime but with the murders execution brings closure to the victims family. This assures them that this murderer won’t kill again. Preventing future murders, being used fairly, and if you take another life yours should not be spared are all prime examples of how the death penalty is constitutional and good public policy. People are entitled to their own views and opinions but is it really worth giving a killer the right to live after all the pain caused.

2/22/2013
New Milford/ PA
Adam
Ms. Ross/ Blue Ridge High School
I believe the death penalty is constitutional and a decent public policy, as long as the process is done correctly. People fear death, and they fear death by the government even more, the use of the death penalty might stop future murders. If all of the stages before the execution are done correctly there is almost no way that someone who is innocent can be executed, so it is fair to whoever is in question. For the people who are going to be executed, they took away someones life. They took away a brother, sister, father, mother, a son or daughter, or a spouse, what makes them have the right to be able to live when other people are suffering for what they have done? Using all of these examples, I would support the death penalty.

2/20/2013
New Milford/ Pa
Lindsey
Ms. Ross/blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional. Death is death. If someone is put to death for a murder crime what makes our justice system any better than the murderer? The plaintiff sometimes wants the punishment for the defendant to be the death penalty; if the crime was bad enough for this punishment. They are acting out of revenge; blinded by their emotions. Fire being fought with fire won’t fix anything, there’ll just be more fire. Two wrongs won’t make the situation right again. It is understood that the defendant may have murdered someone in cold blood, but that doesn’t mean the justice system should do the same exact thing. Even if the person is put into a peaceful sleep rather than brutally murdered; in the end they don’t wake up. It’s the same.

2/20/2013
Sidney, MT
Elise
Mr. Faulhaber
The death penalty is constitutional only in certain circumstances. Why pay for someone to rot in prison their whole life? It doesn't make any sense to me.. For example, we had a teacher who was on a early morning run who got rapped and killed. All because these two men were high on drugs, and felt like doing it. I believe sick people like them should most definitely be put to death.

2/20/2013
Sidney, MT
Kiara
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe the death penalty isn't constitutional. What gives a human being the right to be in charge of another's actions and have the right to do the same thing, example: in a murder case, to do the same thing and be able to kill the prisoner/convict?! states shouldn't be permitted to carry out the death penalty, and if they do under only very probable reasons...Giving one the right, whom works for the government, the right to execute someone else, taking away their life through the death penalty is a poor reasoning for the death penalty i believe. the death penalty IS cruel and unusual punishment, no matter a person's health history....

2/15/2013
New Milford/Pa
Kara
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty has some altercations in some parts of the country today on if it is considered constitutional or if it is unconstitutional, and from looking from an outside perspective the death penalty is considered unconstitutional. Some others may feel this way because if you look at the innocence of a persons’ being it is too delicate to put to chance if you are unsure of a certain person being truly guilty and convicted of a crime they may not have even committed. By enforcing the death penalty on a person you are going against their eighth amendment right to not have cruel and unusual punishment for a crime they committed. If you go against the eighth amendment you are going against the constitution and the actual justice system. When you [government] use the death penalty and put into effect you may seem to be in power but therefore you should not have the right to take another persons life. Also by doing so you make our government and justice system seem weak.

2/15/2013
New Milford, PA
Patrick
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
Many people have their own views on the death penalty, but do those views make it right or wrong? When a person is murdered usually the family of that victim wants the murderer to have the best punishment the government will allow. This is because the murderer didn’t follow the law, causing the victim’s family to have grief. Justice demands that the convicted murderer be given a punishment in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. The death penalty gives a proportion of constitutional and justified. Also, if the murderer gets the life sentence he might be given more luxuries than he would have outside of his life sentence. Therefore giving the murderer three meals a day, a warm place to live, not having to pay like other people, and clean sheets wouldn’t justify for what that person has done. Committing murder is serious and so should the consequence.

2/14/2013
BrandonFlorida
Destiny
Bragg/ Progress Village Middle Magnet School of the Arts
The death penalty should be stopped unless the peron is crazy and could really hurt people

2/14/2013
New Milford, PA
Darlene
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional in many circumstances. It is a just punishment because it can prevent future murders.The death penalty should be used for one person taking the life of another. The death penalty is unconstitutional when it is unfairly or arbitrarily used. The murderers will think twice before killing another for fear of losing their own lives. I think most people would want to be put in prison then have to get the death penalty. perhaps our country would have less violence when one murder takes a life of another. Sometime the death penalty is unfairly used. It should be used depending on the situation. For example if one person kills another person he should go to prison for the rest of his life.but i he kills a group of people he should get the death penalty. 1 out of 7 people are innocent and have to get the death penalty for something someone else did. Although, I agree that the death penalty is constitutional in most circumstances, it should always be applied fairly.

2/14/2013
New Milford, PA
Nate
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is clearly unconstitutional. I am sure you are wondering how this violates the Constitution. It violates the eighth amendment, the one forbidding cruel and unusual punishment. Death is a cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is in countries such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea that are not free countries. We are a free country and above putting our criminals to death. People use, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” as an excuse to murder the murderers. But we don’t rob robbers or mug Muggers. Therefore, we should not murder murderers. It is the equivalent of revenge and it is wrong for a free people to stoop to that level. There have been murder cases where the convicted were found to be innocent after being sentenced to death. When you sentence the wrong man to prison time, you can let this innocent man out of prison. The mistake can be more easily fixed. But if you execute, or murder, an innocent man who did not commit the crime, you cannot bring him back to life. He’s dead. That is a big risk that can easily be avoided by simply abolishing the death penalty.

2/10/2013
New Milford, PA
Brittany
Ms. Ross
Why should someone who committed one of the worst crimes be able to live his life until his natural death while his victim or victims didn’t have the choice of living their whole lives? Why should the murderer get the chance of life while the victim does not. Some view the death penalty from a religious perspective or “ an eye for an eye”. The death penalty also gives a public view that our justice system will not tolerate crimes of that nature which may persuade a person to think twice to before committing such an unthinkable crime. The death penalty for a lot of families brings closure and ensures them that the convicted person will never be able to harm another person. Finally, it stops that person from committing another crime in prison whether it be against another inmate or guard. Without the death penalty, convicted murderers serving life sentences have nothing to lose.The death penalty is constitutional as it does not violate the Eighth Amendment and one reason would be that you have a two part trial consisting of the guilt phase and and sentencing phase so there really can’t be a mistake in whether they are guilty or innocent.

2/8/2013
New Milford, PA
Ariel
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional. It is not "cruel and unusual" punishment because the convicted murderers put themselves in jeopardy of losing their lives by taking the lives of others. We have reserved the death penalty for only the most serious crimes. The death penalty is not unconstitutional as we have made the methods of execution more humane. Lethal injection is a quick and painless way to die. The death penalty is good public policy because it is an effective deterrent as most people fear death. Even though it costs a lot of money, it is worth it since it saves lives.

2/8/2013
New Milford, Pa
Tyler
Ms.Ross/ Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional and good public policy It could potentially stop people from committing serious crimes because it serves as a deterrent. It should cause a person to think taking someone else’s life will also be taking his life. Many people believe that people should be punished for serious crimes that they have committed. For example, say someone’s child is murdered and the police found the person who did it, the family will want justice. It is constitutional because it is fairly applied. There is a two part trial for the death penalty cases; this has made the death penalty more fair to those on trial for murder. The death penalty is a just consequence for terrible crimes and is administered fairly.

2/8/2013
New Milford, PA
Kyle
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional and bad public policy. The risk of executing innocent people instead of guilty people is too great. In 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row because there was evidence that exonerated them. For every eight people executed, one person on death row should not have been convicted. Our capital punishment system is unreliable. These statistics represent “an intolerable risk of executing the innocent”. Of those defendants who were granted a new trial, over 80 percent were not sentenced to death and 7 percent were completely acquitted. The death penalty is unconstitutional because you might kill an innocent person and when you find evidence that another person did it, then it is too late; you cannot make that one person come back to life. That is why the death penalty is unconstitutional. http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument3a.htm

2/8/2013
New Milford/PA
kristen kubasti
Ms.Ross/Blue Ridge
The death penalty is unconstitutional and bad public policy. An execution by the government fits the definition of “cruel and unusual” punishment. Capital punishment causes more violence. Teaching someone to respond to violence will only create more violence. People may act out in bad public matters. The pain someone goes through of losing a loved one won’t go away by killing someone. It doesn't prevent future murders it will only cause more trouble and violence. Just because you’re killing someone doesn't mean that there are not more people out there that might do the same thing. Those serving a life sentence often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence. If someone is sentenced to life in prison, that is better than killing them. At least they suffer in jail, but if you kill a person they just die not suffer. I’m more than positive that if someone does commit a serious crime it is better to have them suffer his life away. 1.95 billion per trial and trial cost is too costly. Therefore, the death penalty is an unconstitutional, ineffective, and costly consequence for serious crimes.

2/6/2013
New Milford, PA
Melayna
Ms. Ross/Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is constitutional and applied fairly. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applies to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court has given juries and prosecutors some discretion. More white people are executed in this country than black people. Although African-Americans are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. The Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence. Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. stated, “Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin.” Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly.

2/6/2013
New Milford, Pennsylvania
Mary
Ms. Ross Blue Ridge High School
In order to rid the streets of crime, reinforce our nation’s laws, and show consequence for wrong doing, we must render the death penalty an appropriate punishment. Although, some may say that by using this penalty we are teaching society that killing is okay, it is quite the opposite. One successful part of the death penalty is retribution. This not only gives victim’s families closure, but it also encourages others not to murder in an attempt to avoid this punishment. The death penalty also reinforces the thought of crime and punishment. No illegal act can go unpunished, and it is important that younger generations do not assume that idea. Regardless of your state of mind, murder is against the law, and since the victims don’t have a choice, it is only fair that nor does the killer. Receiving the needle is in no way cruel and unusual punishment; it is not savage and it is a humane act. It is an effective form of public policy as it encourages beneficial morals and values. Without the death penalty, criminals may be more inclined to commit vicious acts because their life is in no danger. Most people don’t fear prison nearly as much as they fear death. Life is precious, but the government must be fair.

2/6/2013
New Milford, Pa
Riley
Ms. Ross/ Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is both constitutional and good public policy. The death penalty should be enforced everywhere in the country, because in the most serious crimes most Americans support the death penalty. Criminals that are about to kill might think twice knowing that their own lives might be at stake. The death penalty is used fairly and properly. More whites have been executed than African-Americans, despite the view that the death penalty is sometimes viewed as discriminatory. That shows that capital punishment is used fairly and for the most serious crimes. An analysis was done by Issac Ehlrich stating that for every inmate executed, 7 lives were saved because potential murderers were afraid of their own lives being taken. The death penalty is constitutional and should continue to be enforced throughout the country. With Capital punishment in effect, more lives will be saved.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg, Pa
Tyler
Morris/Central Dauphin High School
YES! The Death Penalty is 100% constitutioinal for those convicted and had eye witness accounts for a capital crime such as taking a life should pay the ultimate price for the consulation of the victums family that is no longer around. lethal injection, hanging, and fireing squad are still used today, mainly in Texas, are still used and should remain to be used. Otherwise what would detur criminals from commiting murder if the mind set is "i will go to jail and get out eventually" but if they sit on death row and know in time they will walk "the green mile" then maybe then it would force some criminals away from commiting crimes.

2/6/2013
New Milford, PA
Melody
Ms. Ross/ Blue Ridge High School
The death penalty is not constitutional and is ineffective public policy. There are so many logical reasons as to why the death penalty is not constitutional. The people who have committed the crime should have to live and deal with the choice that they made in prison. It cost more taxpayers money to go through with the death penalty than to have them spend the rest of their life in jail. Also, according to aclu.org, law enforcement professionals gave a survey showing the death penalty was ranked lowest among ways to reduce crime. Another reason is that the states that don’t use the death penalty have lower murder rates than states that do. When someone in the wrong state of mind is going to commit a capital crime, the thought of getting away with it is on their mind. If the thought of getting caught crosses their mind, it is not the death penalty they are worried about; it is the thought of spending the rest of their life in prison. Spending the rest of one’s life in jail is a good enough punishment; it also a way to ensure the safety of the society, and makes sure that there isn’t a chain reaction of the choices that the criminal made in the first place.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg/Pennsylvania
Toby Maduka
Morris/ Central Dauphin
I believe the death penalty is constitutional because if you kill another person then you should die.

2/4/2013
Hallstead PA
jessica
Ms. Ross
The death penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. The reason for this being should we punish a murder with another murder? I do not support the death penalty. why should we have the right to take away someones life, even if they felt they could take away another’s. This is contradicts the whole justice system. you killed someone so to punish that we are going to do the same. some may say it restores justice. I say it is just a glorified version of vengeance. We were taught at a young age that revenge is not ok. So why should this glorified version of revenge be ok? For those who are innocent, yet convicted simply due to their lack of representation or the poor quality of representation, the death penalty comes as an unjust means of punishment. For those who are actually innocent and for those who are not, capital punishment shouldn't be something they have to worry about.

2/4/2013
new milford/ PA
michelle
Ms. Ross/ Blue Ridge High School
Our justice system is said to be honorable and just, but how honorable is a system that murders, murderers as a form of retribution and willingness to put innocent lives at risk of execution? The death penalty has proven to do little more than a sentence of life in prison for the safety of society. States without the death penalty actually generally have lower murder rates. The death penalty also put the innocence at risk, in the past 40 years studies have shown that at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence proving their innocence came into play. This means that ? people on death row never should have been convicted in the first place. The death penalty only furthers the act of violence and the government stooping to the level of criminals just doesn’t make sense. Everyone should completely respect lives of everyone, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. The death penalty is not constitutional and makes our justice system seem weak.

1/11/2013
Watertown/MA
George Wannes
Mr.Rimas/Watertown High School
death penalty should stay because i believe in eye for an eye so a life for a life makes sense to me.

1/11/2013
Watertown/ MA
alex
Mr. Rimas/ watertown high
I believe the death penalty is constitutional and the state should vote on whether or not to have the death penalty. Obviously in a man slaughter case the death penalty should not be an option. Yet in a homicide case where the prosecution can prove that the murderer had specific intentions to take the lives of one or more people, then the death penalty should be an option to be decided on by the jury. I'm not saying that the death penalty should be the definite solution for killing and that if you kill someone then you should be killed as well. But if you do intentionally kill someone then the death penalty should be an option, not a solution.

1/11/2013
Watertown/Ma
Victoria
Rimas/Watertown Highschool
I think that if you kill someone for no reason.. you should be killed as well. The death penalty is constitutional when there are specific regulations to it. If someone commits murder in self defense or in response/revenge from a different murder or action that would justify the killing.. then I don't think they should die.

1/11/2013
Watertown/ MA
Wilson
Mr. Rimas
I don't think the death penalty constitutional but it's something that should be done in extreme cases of crimes. Yes I think Mass should have the death penalty.

1/11/2013
Watertown
Nina Soares
Rimas/Watertown highschool
I feel that their should be a death penalty because if your willing to kill someone of any age should be killed also.

1/11/2013
Watertown/ma
Arielle
Mr. Rimas/Watertown High School
I believe the death penalty is constitutional,I think if you knowingly take a persons life you should die. jail time is a waste of money and only shows us that with parole a human life is only worth 25 years.

1/11/2013
Watertown, MA
Laura G.
Mr. Rimas/ Watertown High
If a person takes the life of one person they should not be sentenced to death. If someone is a serial killer then that is a different story because there is no chance of them ever being rehabilitated. For many the death penalty is the easy way out. Many people who are on death row say that they are "going home". They look at death in a positive light. Murderers should have to sit in prison for the rest of their lives or for their sentence to pay for their crimes. They have no freedom in prison and life is not easy. They are forced to face what they did. The death penalty is unconstitutional. A person may have taken the life of another person but where does that give us the right to take the life of the person who committed the murder? How is the death penalty any different than murder? Two wrongs don't make a right.

1/11/2013
Watertown / MA
Diora
mr.rimas/watertown high school
The death penalty is constitutional because if a person kills someone and takes their lives away its not fare and I believe that the person should get the death penalty to set examples for other individuals who are on the bad path of committing a criminal penalty. If the person is not killed they might do it again, so the death penalty is a good way to stop that.

1/11/2013
Watertown/MA
Rose
Rimas/Watertown
I think the death penalty is constitutional to a certain extent. I f someone is being put to death for a serious crime or several crimes then it's constitutional but if they're being put to death for one crime that wasn't that bad then it's unconstitutional. it all depends on the degree of the crime.

1/11/2013
Watertown/MA
Maysa
Mr. Rimas/Watertown High School
I do not agree with the death penalty at all. I believe that it is unconstitutional because, to me, it does fall under cruel and unusual punishment. It is more suffering for someone to live the rest of their life in person rather then just being killed. The death penalty is giving that person an easy way out. I also don't think states should be allowed to carry out the death penalty.

1/11/2013
Watertown/MA
Doob
Rimas
I believe that it should be up to each individual state to decide whether or not the death penalty is allowed. The death penalty should be carried out in a very humane way, such as lethal injection.

1/11/2013
Watertown/MA
Norah
Rimas/Watertown
I don't believe that people should be legally killed for a crime. Although I disagree with the death penalty, I think that there are some exceptions. For example, dangerous serial killers or adults who have sexually assaulted many children. However, it it based on each case; they definitely need to look into motive and if they will commit more crimes, etc.

1/9/2013
montgomery/tx
Big Mike Morales
metzger/montgomeryhighschool
So i dont understand how the goverment can allow a homeless man that has a clean criminal record to starve to death or be homeless,while a serial killer can kill 10 innocent people and get to live the rest of his natural life in a prison cell. And his family would get to come see him and he would get a meal everyday, i just feel like thats very wrong.

1/7/2013
Montgomery/Texas
Megan
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I believe the death penalty is constitutional under certain circumstances. If you willingly and knowingly take someone else life you've already given up the right for you to live yours. States should be permitted to carry out the death penalty on crimes where the person was of sane mind and body and acted under his own free will, choosing to murder another human being. if the murderer was not of sane mind and did not understand they're actions then different measures can be taken and he could probably go to a mental hospital since he did not understand his actions and how they would affect the other human being. The practice does not violate the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment, yes the punishment is death but the person receiving the injection has already taken someone else life away and its not cruel to inject someone its like getting a required immunization except its for the good of the population instead of just your personal health.

1/6/2013
Montgomery/TX
Eduardo
Metzger/Montgomery
The death penalty is constitutional. People that commit heinous crimes deserve the death penalty not only for justice it self but to set an example for others with corrupted minds. If the person took another or more then ones right to live why. should we let them keep theirs? Prison is a slap on the wrist for taking another life

1/3/2013
Montgomery/TX
Derek
Metzger/Montgomery Highschool
I think the death penalty is constitutional. I believe if you take someones life your life should be tooken as well, but if it is involuntary then yes i would say it is unconstitutional. I think jail time wouldnt be appropriate for that person because if they didnt get the death penalty that is less room in prisons and more money to just keep he/she in prison.

1/3/2013
Montgomery/TX
Kelsey
Metzger/Montgomery
In my opinion, the death penalty is completely constitutional. The punishment is not cruel in the sense that it is a lethal injection that results in a quick and painless death. It is not unusual either, considering that the criminal is receiving the punishment for something cruel and unusual towards another or other beings. I think that they are actually being shown kindness with such a simple, painless procedure. I believe that you should do unto others as you want to be done to you. If it were up to me, I think that the convict should suffer in the same way that the victim did. It is only fair. For example, the man that dragged a black male from behind a car, killing him, should be drug behind a car as well. As for mentally ill inmates and convicts, they do not always understand the effects of certain actions and have less understanding of their actions in general. That of course, does not make it right or okay, but they should be locked away to keep their threat away from society, and treated differently for their crime.

1/2/2013
Montgomery/TX
Jennifer
Metzger/Montgomery
I think that the death penalty is unconstitutional. I believe if you kill someone you should not have the right to have your life taken away from you and not have to suffer from your actions. Physically being alive in jail and having to deal with it constantly as it replays in your head is punishment enough. I think the death penalty violates the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. What punishment could possibly be worse than death itself? None.

12/10/2012
CA
Yovana
MHS
Someone's death should not be in the hands of the constitution. Death should be something natural not imposed. Though a person did take another's life, two wrongs do not make a right. Instead these prisoners should just be left to suffer in prison for the rest of their lives.

11/16/2012
Henderson NY
Ashley
Miss Colby, Belleville Henderson
I think that the death penalty is conctitutional, i beleive in it 100% . I think that states should have the death penalty, but there should also be some restrictions. Taking a life, and having your life be taken as a consiqunce seems fair to me. I think that if someone can be proven guilty for the death of another person they should get the death penalty, i also think that if they admit to it they should also get the death penalty. After someone is killed the killer gets to sit in jail, with a bed, showers, three meals a days, a gym, they get to watch tv and they dont have to work. Sounds like harsh punishment to me..

10/30/2012
Sidney, Mt
Whitney
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
I believe the death penalty is constitutional. If you think you can take the life of someone else then you have given up your life and liberty too and should be put to death. Just because you said you didn't know what you were doing doesn't mean you won't do something in the future.

10/30/2012
Sidney, Montana
Travis
Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that the death penalty is constitutional because if you kill someone else on purpose then your life should also be taken.

10/30/2012
Sidney MT
Sicily Mitchell
Sidney High School (Mr.F)
I personaly do think the death penalty IS constitutional. However, keep in mind the circumstances, and let each state decide their stance on it.

10/4/2012
tulare, ca
mi mi
mathews western
i think they should not do death penalty and let people suffer for there crime expically if they killed someone

9/17/2012
Havelock/Nc
Marcheal
Havelock High School
I dont like death row killing somebody caused they hurt you isnt going to bring them back.Before you judge someone and call them a monster look at their history if you were in their position it you would turn out the same one.Killing somebody cause they are mental is wrong.

9/7/2012
Sidney MT
Alec J
Sidney High School
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional. I believe that if you take the life of someone else, that you have given up your right to life and liberty. I also believe that people with mental disabilities should be able to have the death penalty too. Just because someone doesn't understand what they are doing doesn't mean that they won't be a threat to society sometime in the future.

9/7/2012
Sidney, Montana
Ausitn
Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think the death penalty is constitutional i believe in an eye for an eye. if you have menatal disabilities you should get help and not get away with so to speak killing someone. people now days commit a crime and then they clam they are mentaly challenged and get away NOT FAIR to the persons life they took. i have a teacher in sidney that was kid napped and murdered. They went to court and clam they didnt know what they were doing and they have mental problems just so they can get away with it. what about the greatest teacher this school has ever seen what kind of clouser does that give the family. I think they should get the death penalty.

5/11/2012
Porterville/CA
Andres
Mr.Smith/Monache
The death penalty is constitutional in my opinion. Criminals who killed people more than once should be put to death since they also took the life’s of others and should have most of their rights taken away for that. I don’t think people with mental disabilities should be able to get the death penalty since they aren’t really sure what they were doing at the moment.

5/10/2012
Porterville CA
Anthony
Smith/Monache
I believe that is constitutional. I believe if you take a life you should be able to risk your life. If you choose to kill someone you should be able to risk your life. I believe there should be restrictions on the death penalty but if they were the right restrictions then the death penalty should be constitutional.

3/30/2012
Belleville/New York
Kayla
Miss.Colby/Belleville Henderson
I believe it is constitutional. I believe that if you can kill someone then you should be killed as well. Why have you live when you chose to kill someone else. I think the dealth penalty is a "easy" way seeming how i think if you slit someones throat and kill them, then someone should be able to do the same as you, but that has the authority to do so, like a cop.

3/8/2012
Baltimore/Maryland
Antonio
Jones-Prettyman/Baltimore Talent Development
No. The death penalty is unconstitutional because everyone has love ones and people that love them. Plus, in the Declaration of Independence it says that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if you get convicted of killing a police officer, life should not be taken by lethal injection or by the electric chair. Life shouldn't be taken from no one, even the toughest criminals and serial killers. Citizens of the United States have the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, people do some really bad things, but people can be punished without being killed. So, it's unnecessary to take a life.

3/8/2012
Baltimore/Maryland
Dalonte
Jones-Prettyman/Baltimore Talent Development
The State should not be able to take your life because they did not give it to you, so they should not be able to take it. Under the Constution, they should be able to keep you locked up or let you go. They should not be able to kill you.

3/8/2012
Baltimore/Maryland
Tatyana
Jones-Prettyman/Baltimore Talent Development
No, because in the Constitution it says that you have the right to life and liberty.

2/1/2012
Porterville, California
John
Mr Smith of Monache High
Some people just have a desire to do things that can put a world in chaos knowing that they are out killing. However, we have to put our biased opinions to the person or people and realize that we can't decide whether a human can live or die unless we are in a situation of being attacked. But in this case where we have the person in custody we cannot go against his civil rights due to it being unconstitutional

1/10/2012
Montgomery TX
Justin F
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I believe the death penalty is unconstitutional because some of the convicted offenders put on death sentence may not be the person who did it so they may be on death sentence even though they're innocent so if they put to death the person who was actually innnocent thats a lost loved one who didnt diserve to be put to death. So i believe like some countries not have the death penalty

1/6/2012
Montgomery/Tx
Ely R.
Metzger/Montgomery High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional. No one should have the right to end someone’s life, because 2 wrongs don’t make a right. God was the one who gave us our life and only He can take it away! In the Old Testament it says "an eye for an eye" but Jesus is against that and we as Christians should follow what is in the New Testament. God in the 5th commandment says we shall not kill (Ex. 21:3). People have been put on death row and later been found innocent. You can’t bring someone back to life when that happens. A form of hatred is taking someone’s life away. Never return hate for hate because it is overcome by hate. By putting an innocent person to death gives a reason to put an end to capital punishment because life is sacred and only God can take it away!

1/5/2012
Montgomery, Tx.
Davey C.
Metzger/ Montgomery High School
I believe the death penalty is constitutional, because the people that get the death penalty got it for a reason. They committed a crime that was cruel, and I believe they deserve what is coming to them. The constitution states there will be execution. I think we should follow the constitution and execute those that commit crimes eligible for the death penalty. The people that committed the crime are lucky, because they get an almost painless injection. Their victims didn't have that. Without the death penalty I can see a lot of problems, because its not fair that some innocent person died in vain and the criminal just rotts in jail. The death penalty needs to always be around, and should always be around. Without it their will be only little justice. The death penalty is constitutional, because its a amazing punishment for those that are cold and heartless.

1/5/2012
Montgomery, Tx
J. Gibson
Metzger
I think that executing a prisoner isn't unconstitutional. They obviously committed a crime. If they didn't care about another person keep their life why should the government let them live and keep going with an unlawful act. If it's proven that you committed the crime and are sentenced to death row or whatnot, its deserved. I do think that some states go a bit too far with sentencing people to prison or death row. Really it depends on the crime, but if the person is 100% guilty then i think its fair.

1/5/2012
Montgomery High School
Ryan Beatty
Metzger
I do not believe the death penalty is unconstitutional because the criminals are on deathrow for a reson/crime they committed. You should not be able to take ones life and be able to keep your own. Therefore I believe the death penalty is completley fair/legal and should be inforced nation wide.

1/5/2012
Montgomery,Tx
David Ward
metzger
The death penalty is not unconstitutional. People say it is cruel and unusual punishment but its not. The prisoners are on deathrow for a reason. They commited cruel and unusual punishment to someone else so whats wrong with giving it back to them. Execution was put in the constitution for a reason and there will always be people to execute. People are just gonna have to learn to live with it.

12/21/2011
Montgomery/Texas
Tia Clark
Metzger/ Montgomery High School
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional. The 5th amendment states that “nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Once a prisoner has had a trial and been found guilty, the court has a constitutional right to use the death penalty. I believe that the punishment should equal the crime. Therefore, if you execute a murderer, it is not cruel and unusual punishment. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that there has to be certain sentencing guidelines and other restrictions in order to execute a prisoner.

12/10/2011
Montgomery/Texas
Danielle
Metzger/Montgomery High school
I believe it is unconstitutional. No state should be allowed to carry out the death penalty. I do however agree that murders should be punished by having their freedom taken away, but that does not mean we take away their life. They should be put in jail like all the other criminals. In the Declaration Of Independence it clearly says “That they are endowed by their Creator With certain unalienable Rights, Those among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". These are rights that shouldn’t be taken away by anyone other than our creator. When we kill another human being how does that not make us a murderer as well? We could easily put them in jail for a lifetime and get them help to become a better person but instead we take their life away without even thinking twice about it. Even though it is a long process criminals have to go through to receive the death penalty, they are sometimes proven to be innocent after they have already been tried guilty. Because of this long process it can sometimes be cheaper to keep them locked up behind bars. California for example paid $114 million per year in tax dollars to keep prisoners locked up and $250 million for each execution. People also need to think about the murder's families who are left behind. They lost their loved one and are suffering way more than the actual murderer. In conclusion I do not think there should be a death penalty, it is morally wrong, takes away our God given rights, costs too much, and is unfair to the criminals family.

12/10/2011
Montgomery, Texas
J. Molina
Montgomery High School (Metzger)
I think that executing inmates is not unconstitutional. If anyone believes that the death penalty is 'a cruel and unusual' act let that person ask themselves: 'Didn't the person on death row commit a cruel and unsual crime against someone?' Clearly the criminal did not care about another person's life so why should the law allow the criminal to keep his or hers? Especially if the killer feels absolutely no remorse towards the crime he or she commited. Dying for a death one (purposely) caused does not violate the 8th amendment. What was cruel and unusual is what they did.

12/7/2011
Montgomery, Texas
Chelsey Williams
Metzger/Montgomery High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional, even though someone commits murder, I don't think it is fair whatsoever to kill that person. How would you feel if your family member, mother, father, sister, brother, or anyone close to you commited a murder, brutal or not.. you personally would NOT want them to be sitting on death row, for God knows how long anticipating their own death, knowing it is coming for them. How do you think their friends/family feel? No one deserves to die but they do deserve punishment. Sitting in a prison for the rest of their life is enough punishment for someone. I consider it cruel and unusual punishment. It is not fair that one person can commit murder, get life in prison. Another person, life with parol. And another is sentenced to death row. They all three commited murder, how is it fair to that person or the family of the person sentenced to death row, it's not. No one deserves to die of their wrong doing. So yes, the death penalty is unconstitutional.

12/7/2011
Montgomery/Texas
lacey
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I think that the death penalty is constitutional. If you are proven guilty 100% for a serious crime, then there is no reason you shouldn't be punished. If they murdered someone then they don't care about taking a life of another person then why would it matter to them if you took there life. There should be restrictions, depending on your crime, if you rob a store you shouldn't receive the same punishment for someone who killed someone

12/6/2011
Montgomery, Texas
Railey R.
Metzger/Montgomery High School
The death penalty is a fair punishment for people who commit major crimes that harm others. There should be some restrictions on capital punishment based on the crimes committed. Punishment will alter, so death penalty isn't for every crime. Murder is a perfect example of when the death penalty should be used. I believe that if you take someone else's life then yours should also be taken from you. The death penalty isn't harming or torturing anyone. It shows others that there is punishment for extreme actions that hurt others. The practice does not violate cruel or unusual punishment because the convict brought it upon himself. I agree with the fact that states should have the right to vote on if they want to practice the death penalty or not. The death penalty is not unconstitutional.

12/5/2011
Montgomery, Texas
Amy Anderson
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I believe the death penalty to be constitutional. The death penalty should be accompanied by restrictions on who is allowed to be sentenced to death. Only the most serious crimes, like murder, should have death as their punishment. The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment because there is no torture before being put to death and if you are on death row then you would have had to commit a serious or gruesome crime to be convicted of such a harsh punishment. Harsh punishments like the death penalty send a message to people saying that if you commit such crimes then you will die for your wrong doings and will not be able to get away with breaking the law and hurting others.

11/28/2011
Montgomery/Texas
Kaitlyn B
Metzger/ Montgomery High school
In the case of death penalty yes, I do think it is constitutional. I mean if you are proven guilty in the court of law then yeah, you do deserve to be punished. Yes, the punishment does vary from person to person, but did that person that they killed truly deserve to be taken away from their family prematurely like that? Even if you put the killer in prison for the rest of his/her life isn't that just as much cruel and unusal punishment as actually killing them? I mean even if in prison the person comes to self realization the chances of them getting out of prison are slim. Then, if that doesn't happen they will eventually go insane from solitary confinement. Imgaine being stuck in the same place for the rest of your life, not that great. Every person has a different opinion on the death penalty so, it would be a good idea to have to states open to practice their opinion. Not everyone is going to be happy with others opinions but, is there ever making everyone happy at once?

11/18/2011
Rudyard, MT
Shelby L.
Mrs. Campbell
Each State should have their own decision on whether or not they will use the death penalty. If the State decides to keep the death penalty they have some big decisions to make. How do you choose who receives the death penalty? Do only the criminals that are absolutely without a doubt guilty get it and the criminals that we aren’t 100% sure on get to live? They may have committed the exact same crime but because one was slightly less evidence they live and the other dies. If the State decides to go that route then do the put the criminal who lived in jail? If so how long? There are so many questionable situations with the death penalty that I think it would be unconstitutional to pick and choose who dies and who doesn’t. Yes, they may deserve it for what they have done, but what if they didn’t do it and they are still killed then what? Does that have to happen and be proved before the death penalty is unconstitutional?

11/17/2011
San Antonio, TX
Spencer
Earl Warren High
I believe that the death penalty is perfectly acceptable as long as the possibility that the defendent killed the victim is 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there's reasonable belief that (s)he is innocent, then hold back on the death penalty.

11/4/2011
Madison/NE
Brent
Mrs. Gentile/LHNE
I believe the death penalty is constitutional as long as we can afford it. It makes sense that if someone commits a crime that is worthy of capital punishment, then they deserve exactly that.

11/4/2011
Columbus, NE
zach
Mrs. Gentile
I believe that it is completly constitutianal. If someone murders someone and their is sufficiant evidence that they are the ones who commited the crime they deserve to pay the price for what they have did. That is my opinion.

11/4/2011
Irving/Texas
Aaron
Bradley/Nimitz
Although the death penalty is often over-used in some states, I believe it is constitutional and should remain the answer for criminals who don't deserve anymore chances. Murderers should know that as soon as they killed, it became an eye for an eye situation. No one like that deserves another chance, all they do is take up another cell in the prison for the rest of their lives, it puts them out of their misery.

11/4/2011
Norfolk NE
Trenton
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High
I believe the death penalty is constitutional because it is not cruel and unusual punishment. Every state can carry it out on their own accord. If there would be a limit on it, it would be decided on how severe the crime. If you killed someone then you should be put to death, or if you steal from a bank, you deserve life in prison.

11/4/2011
Norfolk, NE
Austin
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High
I think the death penalty is constitutional. I think that the states should be permitted to carry out the death penalty. I think that the only restriction on this is that the criminal should be 100 percent guilty of the crime because i think that if he didnt even do the crime or if their isnt sufficient evidence then he should not be killed for something we dont even know that he did.

11/3/2011
Norfolk NE
Joshua
Lutheran High Northeast
The death penalty is constitutional. Any punishment is constitutional as long as it is not both cruel and unusual as stated in the constitution. This means you could have a very cruel punishment if it's not unusual or an unusual punishment if its not cruel. The way its stated in the constitution allows punishments to be one or the other.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, NE
Nicholas
Mrs. Gentile
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional. I think that if a person chooses to take the life of another person in their own hands, they give their life up to the authorities to deal with how they think is right and it would only make sense for a person to be sentenced to death for taking the life of another. As long as capital punishment is carried out through such means as lethal injection, I don't think it can be considered to be cruel or unusual punishment, so I support it.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Faith
Mrs. Gentile/ Lutheran High Northeast
I believe that the death penalty should continue to be legal. Life is valuable. If you take someone's life away, you should be held completely responsible for it. I do not believe that time in jail is a high enough consequence for murder. Going to jail may not really threaten or scare people. I do believe that before a person is completely convicted of murder, their case should be thoroughly examined to make sure they really are guilty.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Faith
Mrs. Gentile/ Lutheran High Northeast
I believe that the death penalty should continue to be legal. Life is valuable. If you take someone's life away, you should be held completely responsible for it. I do not believe that time in jail is a high enough consequence for murder. Going to jail may not really threaten or scare people. I do believe that before a person is completely convicted of murder, their case should be thoroughly examined to make sure they really are guilty.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/NE
Liz
Mrs. Gentile/LHNE
I have to say that i agree that the death penalty is constitutional. The punishment should fit the crime. It has been that way since the Hamarrabi code "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", how else would you punish those who have commited murder? You really think there is a better way?

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Katie
Mrs.Gentile/LHNE
I think the death penalty is constitutional. I feel people need BIG consequences for BIG crimes. Crimes like murder for example. I think punishments need to fit the crime. You kill some one then you also should be put to death. If we don't have the death penalty then I worry our overcrowded jails will become more overcrowded.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, Nebraska
Shelby
Mrs. Gentile
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional without any question. I do not believe that this applies to the eighth amendment concerning cruel and unusual punishment. I f someone commits a murder there so be no limitations on how that murderer is killed. They get what they deserve!

11/3/2011
Norfolk/NE
Jordan
Mrs. Gentile/ LHNE
My opinion is that it is constitutional. It's not breaking any rules of the constitution, so therefore, as long as the punishment fits the crime, it's fine. If someone murders someone, they should have their life taken away also.

11/3/2011
Norfolk,Nebraska
Rachel
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
The death penalty is constitutional in my opinion. Why I say this is because we need something that is worse than the just sitting in jail for 30 years of your life. If they killed someone they should have to die for there crime. If someone takes a life there life should be taken for that crime.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, Nebraska
Taylor
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional. My reasoning for this would be that they should get what they deserve. By taking someone else's life you should also have yours taken away. They made the choice to kill that person and so they are completely responsible for the crime. And lastly there are many cruel and unusual punishments that I can think of that are way worse than lethal injection, such as getting a nice bath in sulfuric acid.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, Nebraska
Andrea
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I think the death penalty should continue to be legal because if someone gets life in prison for murdering a person, someone who murders ten people should get something worse. I do however think that certain precautions should be taken to make sure that the people are not actually innocent. They should be proven guilty.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, NE
Katrina
Mrs.Gentile/LHNE
I think the death penalty is constitutional. If you are convicted of a purposeful murder, you should be punished. They are getting what they deserve. It doesn't go against cruel or unusual punishmenet if you aren't torturing them. They're just getting what they deserve, I guess.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Kendra
Mrs. Gentile/LHNE
I don't think there is anything wrong with the death penalty. if we abolished it i think it would lead to increased crime becasue people would not be as "scared" of the consequences of their actions.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Beth
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I don't think there is anything wrong with the death pentalty. If someone kills another person, they should get a stronger punishment than the man who holds up a convenience store. We aren't killing them in cruel or inhumane ways, which is forbidden in the Constitution.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, Nebraska
Jordan
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I think that the death penalty is completely constitutional. If you are responsible for killing the life of someone else (not for self defense purposes) your crime should be justified. Most people would take life in prison over the death penalty any day. The death penalty is way more of a punshment and it doesn't go against cruel or unusual punishment in any way.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Ne
Zach
Mrs. Gentile
I believe that capital punishment is ok. If someone takes the life of another human being, then the governement should be able to take their life. It is not a cruel thing. In most cases the convicted person takes the life of another in a much harsher way of means.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, Nebraska
Kyle
Mrs Gentile
I think that the death penalty is Constitutional because the people that did such hanus crimes should deserve the punishment that they deserve. It is not something that should be exaggerated but to certain extents it is. The States should be allowed to as long as they got their permit to do it approved by the National Government. It would not be considered to be a cruel and unusual punishment in my mind

11/3/2011
Norfolk/NE
Natalie
Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I think that the death penalty is constitutional as long as it is done in a humane way. There crime should be justified, but I dont think there is a need to toruture them.

11/3/2011
norfolk/ne
jacob
gentile/lutheran northeast
i think it is totally constitutional, if you take away someones right to life, then justly your right to life should be taken. it is not a cruel punishment if it is a quick death such as the electric chair, lethal injection, or even a firing line. a firing line would be way cheaper.

11/3/2011
Norfok/Ne
LaDarius
Mrs. Gentile
Yes it is a good deal

11/3/2011
Norfolk, NE
Shelby
Mrs. Gentile
Although I don't approve of taking a human life, I find the death penalty to be constitutional for a variety of reasons. The first one being that this law is under the government, not God. We derive it from the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not murder; to be specific. Be sure to note that this command is not intended for our generation. Allowing persons to remain in prison is both costly, and it presents the possibility of relasing them back into society where they could create further issues. No more turn the other cheek, it's time to take care of the issue.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Taylor P
Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I think the death penalty is unconstitional as far as actually taking someone's life goes by just looking at the words in the constitution. However they gave up that right when they decided to kill someone else, making it constitutional.

11/3/2011
Norolk/Nebraska
Catrina
Mrs. Gentile/ Lutheran High Northeast
I don't believe it is clarified very well whether or not the death penalty is unconstitutional or not. I believe that since there is not a clarification blatently proving the unconstitutionality of the death penalty gives way to the answer that the death penalty is constitutional. I think that any way the death penalty is carried out should be legal too because if it was fast and painless a murderer would pick that instead of life in prison, makes it less of a punishment, and more of a desirable outcome to taking a life.

11/3/2011
Norfolk Nebraska
Hannah
Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
I think that the death penalty is consittutional and that states should be able to carry it out. If someone kills another person then the punishment for that should be their life.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Whitney
Mrs. Gentile
I think that the death penalty is constitutional because people need to have serious consequences for the crime that they commit. If someone takes another person's life, then that crime should be justified. But I also think it should be done in a humane way (which it is), so I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping the death penalty for capital punishment.

11/3/2011
Norfolk, Nebraska
Kelsey
Mrs. Gentile/ Lutheran High Northeast
I think that the death penalty is constitutional and should be legal. States should carry out the death penalty becasue of equal justice, if someone kills a person, they deserve to have the same done to them. It does not violate against cruel or unusual punishment because again they are getting exactly what they deserve, for killing another person.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Zach
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
In my opinion, the death penalty is 100% constitutional. It’s the most proper way to punish someone who has taken the life of another human being. People fear death. We always have and always will. That makes the death penalty such a punishment. If I killed someone, I would rather take life in prison with free food and bed than be executed. To the people who think that the death penalty violates the 8th amendment, it doesn’t. Cruel and unusual punishment would entitle being tortured for stealing a cookie, or being burned at the stake for killing someone. We simply give them anesthetics then the shot. To me, that’s the most humane way possible.

11/3/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Daniel
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
The death penalty is definitley constiutional. People's arguement is often that the death penalty should not be done because it violates the eighth amendment. What they don't seem to understand is that cruel and unusual punishment is defined as a punishment not befitting of the crime committed. Usually if a person is put on death row, the crime committed was the killing of many people in very violent ways. When they are executed, they are killed in one of the least painful ways possible. They are actually asleep from the anesthetics when the other drugs are administered. Exactly how can that be considered cruel punishment?

11/2/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Ross
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
To me i think that it is a very improtant punishment to have for criminals that want to be in charge of taking other lives. If a human being decides that they can take the life of another person then the government has the power to take their life when the government get's it's power from the people.

11/2/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Hayley
Mrs.Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
In my eyes the death penalty is constitutional. Some people ask what if the person was innocent and ended up getting the death penalty? Well I think that if you have enough evidence and proof that the person is guilty then that shouldn't be a problem. If a person killed another human being then they should have it done to them, proving this isn't unusual punishment.

11/2/2011
Nebraska
Annemarie
Mrs. Gentile
I think that it is constitutional and that all states should be able to carry it out and should carry it out. Restrictions should be that they have to be 100% sure that the person is guilty of the crime. I think that if a crime is serious enough, that life in prison isn't enough. They get free food and housing guaranteed for the rest of their life?! Awesome! I mean obviously jail life isn't exactly the grandest but still...If you feel the need to take the life of a human being away than we feel the need to takes yours away as well.

11/2/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Andrew
Mrs. Gentile/Lutheran High Northeast
The death penalty is definitely constitutional. It is not cruel or unusual, is it wrong to kill someone in self defence? Most people would say no. So what would be wrong after killing them after the fact. Also, I think they should be killed in the way they killed their victims. It seems only fair to me.

11/2/2011
Norfolk/Nebraska
Tyler
Mrs Gentile/ Lutheran High Northeast
There has to be consequences for the things you do. How would it not be constitutional? Its not unusual punishment. By them taking another person's life I think its equal by taking their life away. How would you like for someone to kill your mother in a terrible horrific way? Would you find it fair for them to just stay in jail, be fed and have a place to sleep? I would think not. But at the same time there should be enough evidence provided for guilty without a doubt before preceding with the death penalty.

11/1/2011
rudyard mt
kieffer
northstar
i think that the death penalty is consitutional because why should a person that has killed some one not have the right to die them selvs i think as long as there is substanial evidence against the suspect in the murder and it was brutial then they dont have a right to no death penalty it should be in all states

11/1/2011
Rudyard, MT
Marielle
Mrs. Campbell/North Star
The death penalty is constitutional. If you think about it how many dead people do you know who has committed the same crime twice? None. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate his victims. He's the type of people that need to be sentenced. It's an eye for eye situation, if you kill someone you should deserve it back. It's not "cruel and unusual punishment" it's justice. I don't want a mass murderer sitting in jail getting fed and clothed, he should be sitting in death row. There's nothing wrong with the death penalty. Texas is just utilizing it more than other states. More governments should use it like Texas does. The death penalty should stay how it stands and not be changed.

11/1/2011
Rudyard, Montana
Karston
Mrs. Campbell North Star High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional because the 8th amendment is supposed to protect us form "cruel and unusual punishment," but the death penalty is still necessary in many different occasions. If a person takes the life of many different people and does so much wrong in their life that they need the capital punishment, then yes I do believe that they should recieve the death penalty. The death penalty has such a fine line though because if you give the death penalty to someone that doesn't really deserve than you obviously can't take it back. For instance, if a person was falsely accused of a crime and they recieve the death penalty then that person is dying for no reason at all. Also, once they found out that that person was innocent then it would already be to late.

11/1/2011
Watertown/MA
William Pennington
Mr. Rimas/Watertown High School
The death penalty is unconstitutional. The eighth amendment says that no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". Taking away the life of someone is clearly cruel therefor the death penalty is unconstitutional. Although what the person did was very wrong it does not give justice to anyone and sends the wrong message about the United States and our Justice Department.

10/31/2011
Rudyard/MT
Katelyn
Mrs. Campbell/Northstar
I do believe in capital punishment, because it seems to be the only way to make people pay for cuel and unusual crimes they commit. We are spending way too much money housing major criminals in the prison system who should not get to breath the same air as we do. I believe it is constitutional and I also believe in an eye for an eye. It does not seem cruel to follow through with the death penalty. It seems more cruel to put the victom's family through the agony of knowing that their loved one's killer is still out there.

10/31/2011
Bedford/Texas
Lindsey
Bradley/Nimitz High School
I think that the death penalty is constitutional, people who are willing to do such a hateful crime should be willing to deal with the punishment that comes along with it. When they commit murder you should do to them what they did. If you give them the death penalty they can not make that same mistake that put them in that place again.

10/31/2011
Rudyard/MT
Shelbo
Mrs. Campbell/North Star
The death penalty is completely constitutional. A dead man never commits a crime twice. This is fair due to the fact that it is far more cruel to lock someone up their whole life. Not only this, but it is far too expensive to sit and feed and clothe inmates throughout there whole life. I dont know why this is even an argument though. There are hardly any death penalties accept for in Texas.

10/28/2011
Watertown MA
Tifani
Rimas Watertown High School
I do not think the death penalty is unconstitutional. I think that if a jury finds it a reasonable punishment for someone then that's what they should get. A person getting the death penalty has committed very serious crimes. I think that putting someone in a cage for the rest of their life would be a worse punishment but I don't think it is unconstitutional.

10/28/2011
ma
Derek Wright
Rimas
The death penalty is constitutional because the constitution only protects against cruel and unusual punishment and the death penalty is a fair and just punishment.

10/19/2011
Sidney/Montana
Gene
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
In my opinion, I think the death penatly is unconstitutional. Its kind of sick to kill someone and put on a show with it. I mean your better off locking the person up in a small cell like a dog. I dont think putting someone in jail is very constitutional either, but i wont go there. The death penatly has got to be against the 8th amendment.

10/19/2011
Sidney/Montana
Gene
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
In my opinion, I think the death penatly is unconstitutional. Its kind of sick to kill someone and put on a show with it. I mean your better off locking the person up in a small cell like a dog. I dont think putting someone in jail is very constitutional either, but i wont go there. The death penatly has got to be against the 8th amendment.

10/19/2011
Sidney/Montana
Deserae
Faulhaber
I personally I think it is against the Eighth Amendment, which states no cruel and unusual punishment should be done the person found guilty. I think it should be changed a little bit to insure we execute the true killers. I understand if a person gets the death penalty if he or she has comitted the act of killing over and over again and it's intentional. I think if the defendant is guilty they should go over the evidance to make sure they are the guilty suspect of the crime. If it is obviouse that the defeandent is the killer like the Jeffrey Dahmer case were he was caught eating one of his victims. If that is the case they deserve the death penalty. If we can change this to help the people who are wrongly comitted to the death penalty get to live. I think it's worse if an innocent dies when the true killer is still walking around like nothing happened.

10/19/2011
Sidney MT
Dan
Mr. Faulhaber
Well, lets see.. if you have the ability to kill someone, then the state has the ability to kill you. That doesn't just go for the intentional murder, but for drunk driving as well. If you fall asleep at the wheel then you should be charged with man slaughter and put down. Yes i just said "put down."

10/19/2011
Sidney, Montana
Candace
Ms. Fontana
I think the death penalty is constitutional in certain situations. Like if you committ a serious crime like murdering someone or especially murdering multiple people then they should get the death penalty. But if someone committs a crime like getting into a car accident where someone got seriously injured or killed but the driver didnt mean for the accident to happen then i don't think they should get the death penalty.

10/18/2011
Charlottesville, VA
Dakotah
Bailey/ Monticello High
I think the death penalty is constitutional. I believe it's only fair when there is plenty of proof and there is about zero chance that you're wrong.The Death Penalty is only constitutional is the way they are killed is humane. Hanging, the electric chair, are some of the ways that are monstrous. Even though I may agree that they deserve it, killing someone that cruelly, makes us no better than the murderer themselves.

10/8/2011
Irving/Texas
Jerin
Bradly/Nimitz
I think the death penalty is constitutional. Death penalties existed in the world for centuries and they are still being carried out today in many countries. Sentencing someone to death is not unconstitutional as long as enough proof is given about the seriousness of the crime because some crimes do earn the level of using capital punishment. States in the US are allowed to use death penalties if it is necessary. Even though death penalty is constitutional, the methods used to implement them are rather harsh and unconstitutional. Injecting lethal injections, dragging criminals along the roads using cars and even death by hanging are completely unconstitutional. The best and the only way is to shoot them so that when they die, they would not die a slow and painful death given the fact that they are already hurting by the passing of the death sentence on them. In this way, there is no question or debate about capital punishment being constitutional or not/

10/7/2011
Sidney, MT
Jory
Faulhaber
I think the death penalty is constitutional. If people have enough evidence that the murderer did so they should be killed. To save money, instead of doing lethal injections they should be shot.

10/7/2011
sidney mt
Nick
Mr.Faulhaber
I think the death penalty is constitutional. If someone gets murdered it should be logical that the person who killed him also dies. Stop the lethal injections and just start hanging them or shooting them. It would save us money. It will also lower the population in the prisons. The killer has violated the law and he shouldn't have rights.

10/7/2011
Sidney, Montana
Ande
Miss Fontana
I think the death penalty is unconsititutional. The death penalty violates the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. It costs more of taxpayers money to kill someone then to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. I also think life in prison is a worse and a more effective punishment. There is also a possibility of innocent people getting put to death.

10/7/2011
Sidney Mt
Joe B.
Fontana/Sidney High
The death penalty is constitutional but only if there is proficient evidence that the convicted has actually committed the crime. I think that if there is not enough evidence that the convicted should just have to sit on death row, I pretty much agree with how the system works now. The only thing that is scetchy is all the misconvictions.

10/7/2011
Sidney, Montana
Sami
Miss Fontana
The death penalty is unconstitutional because the peoples lives that have been taken have already died, and since the goverment clearly stated that they wanted deaths to stop. For example when the drinking age was at 18, the government changed the laws. Why would you want to kill a murderer when you can simply keep them alive and they torture themselves everyday for what they had done. In the end that person makes their choice of either killing themselves or trying to change their life around, knowing what they did was wrong. And whether or not the victims family forgives the killer or not, he still made that step to go out of their comfort zone.

10/7/2011
Sidney MT
Taylor
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe the death penalty is constitutional. If someone murders another human being, I think that person should recieve the dealth penalty. People would argue that it's not our decision to take someones life. If that is true, then who gave the murderer the right to take someones life. Why should the murderer have the right to keep their life when he took the life of another.

10/7/2011
Sidney/ MT
Nicole R.
Faulharber/Sidney High School
No, we do not have the right to kill someone. People have the right to live.

10/7/2011
Sidney, Montana
Jaycee
Mr.Faulhaber
I think that the death penaly is unconsitutional. I think that the death penalty should pertain to all crimes, but the ones that either take lives away or put them in serious danger. If people are going to take other lives away and put them into serious danger, then they should get the death penalty. For example: If a person is convicted of a murder charge more than one time, then they should get the penalty.They shouldn't get the oppportunity to live anymore if all they do is cause problems and take away innocent people's lives. Some states do have the death penatly law in use and others don't. I think that all states should use the law. I don't think that the law is agiasnt cruel or unusual punishment. I think the law is needed for many people. If people are going to kill other people, their lives should be taken too.

10/7/2011
sidney montana
Steffan
miss fontana
For someone to kill someone else, they obviously are not in their right mind. do we kill mentally handicapped people for not being sane? no, we spend time and money helping them, and thats how it should be with murderers.

10/7/2011
Sidney MT
Katey
Ms. Fontana
I don't think that the death penalty is unconstitutional at all. If you commit a crime like robbing a convienence store you shouldn't be charged with it unless you end up shooting someone. If you commit a serious crime like murder or rape then I think you should get this punishment. You've taken something from those people that they will never get back and to me that's wrong. You should have to go through the same pain and pay for what you did.

10/4/2011
Irving, Texas
Karla R
Ms. Bradley/NImitz
I don't think capital punishment is unconstitutional as a form of punishment. Obviously, if a person robs a bank and holds bystanders hostage, he should not be charged with the death penalty, but if said person shoots and kills one of the hostages, then I think he should be held responsible for taking another person's life, and should rightfully be punished via the death penalty. But on the other hand, if it was an accidental shooting, then the views and opinions will vary. Now, if a criminal kills someone but isn't rightfully punished, then others would start to think that they can get away with going through with murders and that isn't the right idea the government, jury or judges, want to give to the future criminals. Restrictions wise, I think that mentally disabled people who committed a crime without any intent should not be punished because they basically don't know what they are doing, or if what they are doing is even right or wrong. Then there's the whole other idea about whether the one who committed the crime had any real intent behind his actions or there is something wrong with their minds, and they can justly claim they have mental problems. Another thing to take into account is the age. If the prisoner is underage, do they merit the capital punishment? Or should they live their whole lives in prison as a form of punishment to see the wrongdoings? Either way, if they broke a law, they have to be punished by the law for their wrongdoings.

10/4/2011
Irving/Texas
Jennifer Nguyen
Bradley/Nimitz
The death penalty is constitutional. The process doesn't drag out too long. One dies within seconds. The states should have the right to whether or not a death penalty should be carried out.There's a quote somewhere that goes something like this: Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing is wrong? What happens if it turns out that they were innocent, but it was too late because they were already killed? Even though the death penalty is constitutional, I don't agree with it. Why not just let them live out life sentences?

10/3/2011
Irving/ TX
Joshua P
Mrs. Bradley
In my opinion the death penalty now is completely constitutional because of the use of lethal injections which protects the rights of the 8th amendment. A state should have it's own choice over the death penalty and can decide what to do with the inmate, however, if someone is concretely convicted of killing another civilian out of their own pure anger and hatred they should not be aloud the freedoms the rest of us receive. Personally if we wanted to stop murderers we would use the exact same method of execution they used to murder their victim. It would be the literal term of "treat others how you want to be treated." then they might actually think twice about their actions.

10/3/2011
Irving/TX
Sara
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, I do think in ways it is Constitutional. To me if you purposely kill somebody then you get what you deserve. Which should be the death penalty or life in prison. Killing someone for no reason or just for revenge to me is unconstitutional. There are certain cases that are an exception. For example, if it is self defense and you accidentally kill the person then you shouldn't be charged for trying to help yourself. Other than that I think it is a way of punishment that is accepted.

10/2/2011
Irving/Texas
Aaron
Ms. Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the death penalty is constitutional, and as long as the prisoner is rightfully accused guilty of murder, they should have every right to sentence them to death. Someone who is able to take another life shouldn't be aloud to just wait out a sentence, they should feel the same pain as they caused the victim. Murder is an unforgivable crime, and the only way to pay for what you did is getting the death penalty. It should be up to the state whether it carries it out or not, and if theyw ant to, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

10/2/2011
Irving/TX
Nam
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz
There is nothing cruel about the death penalty. Once you have taken someone life you surrender your own. Does the murder think about what he/she is doing before he/she is do it? Do he/she think what what he/she doing is cruel? Usually people that get the death penalty are the lowest of the scums that walk this Earth . They do things that benefit them, but destroy the life's of others. To rid these types of people is better than having them in prison hurting other inmates, and have the government feeding them with the people's taxes. I don't think this violates any sort of law at all. Because of the crimes they done themselves they have already broken the law for harming others thus deserve the punishment of is fullest potential.

10/1/2011
Irving/TX
Mariah B.
Bradley/Nimitz
The death penalty isn't unconstitutional, because it is not cruel and unusual punishment. Taking into consideration that the death penalty doesn't cause you to suffer for a ridiculously long amount of time while you are being executed, it is not cruel and unusual. A malicious murderer shouldn't get a second chance. The death penalty should not be given flippantly by any means, however, if there is a case where the murderer was overtly cruel, we as a people should not want those people around affecting the society anymore. A heinous crime should be evaluated thoroughly, over and over, until it is unanimously decided that the criminal gets the death penalty.

9/30/2011
Irving/Tx
India B.
Bradley/Nimitz
The death penalty is definitely constitutional, within reason. By taking someone else's life, you forfeit your own. An eye for an eye isn't always the right way to look at things, but in this case it is. If someone has stamped out the light of another human being, that murderer's light isn't one we want shining on us. However, because taking a life is such a serious matter, capital punishment shouldn't be doled out willy-nilly. The facts should be check and rechecked, then given to someone else to check, then check again before having ten other people check them. Taking a life in cold blood is a deplorable act, for which the only punishment fitting is death.

9/30/2011
Irving, TX
Joel S.
Bradley/Nimitz
The eighth amendment of the Constitution states that as Americans, we have the right to not undergo “cruel or unusual punishment.” So is the death penalty cruel or unusual? Well, the government is supposed to protect the freedom and property of its citizens, and a dangerous criminal might harm that. So what exactly is right? As humans, we all make mistakes, but some of us intentionally harm others, even murdering them. The easy is answer is straightforward, but can seem a little harsh: serial killers, mass rapists-- these people are dangerous and harmful to society. They can escape prions, shorten their life sentences, or simply waste taxpayer money by rotting in a cell for 70 years. The death penalty, administered humanely through lethal injection, seems liek the only valid option.

9/30/2011
Irving/TX
Jacob H.
Bradley/Nimitz
To answer the original question, yes, the death penalty is constitutional because it is not “unusual” for someone to want revenge or justice for what has been done. When someone is murdered, their families deserve closure and justice. The death penalty is a way to receive said rights. If the death penalty were not in place, our jails would be even more clogged than they already are. In my opinion, the death penalty is constitutional because of the eighth amendment, instead of the opposite, because, as stated, it is not “unusual” for a family or loved one to want to exact revenge on a murderer.

9/30/2011
Irving, TX
Cynthia G
Bradley/Nimitz
I do believe that the death penalty is constitutional and acceptable to a certain extent. I do not think that it should be used as electrocuting people or hanging them, but something simpler and quicker. Even though the person on death penalty will experience a quick and a short painful death and don't really suffer, they still loose their life. Any state should be allowed to carry out the death penalty if they want to, but each state should have the same rules and regulations to their death penalties. Every following state should have same priorities to follow in order to sentence someone to death row and should all have the same method of death. Prisoners are prisoners for a reason and they should be put to suffer in prisons but sometimes the best is to put someone to the death row.

9/29/2011
Irving/TX
Michael P.
Bradley/Nimitz
Death is the one subject that can never become easy to talk about. Sentencing death because of a crime has been used since the mid evil days. Weather it is right or not, is the biggest question that has pondered us as humans for the past couple century's as the US has become a nation. The first question you as an individual has to answer, is do you feel comfortable with being responsible for someones death? The second question is do you think people who commit murders deserve to be killed? These are conflicting questions that more often than not, have different answers but involve each other when dealing with a matter like this. In my opinion, I believe that any human who kills another human being is at some degree, insane. In that case I believe that we as a society must deal with these people appropriately. But as a human being, I cannot pass judgment on this matter because if I say I believe in the death penalty, I fall into the same pool of people who commit murder in my opinion. Are we as humanity so savage? Answer this, can a human decide weather or not another human should die based on the things they have done? And if so, doesn't that make you just as savage as them?

9/29/2011
Irving?Tx
Azaria
Bradley/Nimitz
There are people out in the world who rape and murder others. Some of these people get sentenced to jail, but others are able to slip through the fingers of Justice. Should we really allow those that have been caught to be released in a couple of years after they are sent to jail? Do we really want people like that out on the streets with us? And is letting them waste their lives away in jail, when there is a risk that they may get out, really better than giving them the death sentence? If the are sentenced to jail for life, then isn't that the same thing as killing them? If those who deserve to die for their crimes are killed, then the state and national governments won't have to spend lots of money to feed, water, clothe, and take care of these murderers. The governments could spend the money they would have kept a murder alive to help those that are innocent and free. And isn't the eighth amendment talking about how we can not be tortured? Isn't living in prison for the rest of your life, with no hope of ever getting out because of the severity of your crimes, torture in itself? Death would seem like a quick and easy, and a somewhat painless experience over a life of imprisonment, wouldn't it?

9/29/2011
Irving/TX
Jesse G
Bradley/ Nimitz
I believe the death penalty is completely constitutional. Yet, I do think states should have the power to choose whether or not their state should allow it. In almost every situation that the death penalty is put out as an option of punishment, the crime the felon committed was a violent act. The country was founded on the principles that everyone would be protected under the law. I think the victims of these crimes deserve to know that the person who committed the crime get every punishment possible under the law. I don't think the criminals should be held to a different standard; if someone tried to act as someone's maker, and they took or attempted to take a life of another their life should hang in the balance of a judge too.

9/28/2011
Irving/Texas
Kirstin F
Bradley/Nimitz
I think the death penalty is constitutional and the state should be able to carry it out, The death penalty is usually used for those who have killed an innocent person and I believe that if you willing kill another person you should not be allowed to live either. You should get exactly what you gave right back kinda like karma. I think the only restriction should be on age. A person under the age of 18 who can not be tried as an adult should not be able to receive the death penalty because technically they are not of age and can not even give permission for themselves their parents are still liable for their actions. I do however fully support the death penalty because I feel it is fair to punish someone with the exact crime they have committed.

9/28/2011
Irving/TX
Tambra B.
Bradley/Nimitz
As far as I’m aware, the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, and against the loss of life, liberty and property without the due process of law. Now, in my opinion, the death penalty does NOT constitute cruel or unusual punishment. It seems the most logical option for criminals proven guilty, by our judicial system, to be killed, rather than kept at the expense of tax payers. And, one could argue that, in some cases, the life time of regret in a prison is in fact a crueler, and more unusual punishment, due to its’ unprecedented inhibition of liberty, and the lifetime of the psychological pain of remorse or regret. To address the possible problems with the death penalty and due process of law, I would like to point out that the States are required to have sentencing guidelines, room for appeals, and other restrictions: that means that there is ample time for wrongly convicted victims of the system to appeal, and garner evidence in their favor. The severity of death would be a problem, but for the fact that courts can now use DNA evidence as a way to convict in many punishable-by-death offenses, and most of the cases where it came out that executed people were wrongly convicted involved DNA evidence coming into a much older case. Another commonly mentioned would-be problem is that of mentally challenged criminals. Many people seem to believe that because they do not understand the world, or right and wrong, or the consequences of their actions, that they should not be held accountable. I do not agree, on the grounds that a sociopath, a psychopath, may not know why right is right and wrong is wrong, and they may not understand the consequences of their actions, but I would not want to have to keep on of them- incurable, violent disease isn’t something tawpayers need to keep alive, to be strait forward.

9/28/2011
Irving/TX
Rocio
Bradley/Nimitz
The death penalty seems like a reasonable punishment for those who have taken the lives of others. I don't understand why people want to hide and protect these killers by deeming the death penalty "unconstitutional." These killers have tortured and taken the lives of innocent people . Their victims had no choice but to suffer, their very lives were ripped away from them by these monsters. If found guilty, these criminals deserve to die, perhaps in worse ways, but for right now all we can do is rely on justice through the death penalties. If the criminal ends up being mentally hadicapped, then he/she should be sent to a very good mental hospital instead of being found guilty for a crime he/she doesn't understand anythng about.

9/28/2011
Irving, Tx
Jose R.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be used as a capital punishments for criminals. The death penalty is constitutional to some extent but its not really doing any punishment to the criminal. If you really think about it, doesn't the criminal only suffer for a short time. I think it would be better more of a punishment if the person was still alive but just had to live through the conditions of prison. Time is a factor that cant be change and is the worst friend for a prisoner. They will always be consent of what crime they committed and will have to face it every single day. By applying the death penalty, the criminals can see that as a way out of all the stress and frustration knowing that they will stay the rest of their life in prison. I think both the state and national government shouldn't be permitted to carry out death penalty.

9/27/2011
Nimitz
Lauren
Bradley
I think the death penalty should be because the people that were murdered and raped deserve justice. The eighth amendment ““no cruel and unusual punishments,” but what that person did to others was cruel and unusual punishment.

9/27/2011
Irving/TX
Luz V
Bradley/Nimitz
The death penalty, when carried out humanely, should be completely constitutional because it is carrying out needed punishment against those who intentionally broke the law by bringing pain to others. When one person takes the life of another, shouldn't the murderer be punished for his actions that were obviously illegal and wrong? Shouldn't the family and friends of the victim have justice and be able to know that the person who hurt them can't hurt anyone else rather than living with the knowledge that they're just sitting in a cell waiting to be released? The moral of the story should be “eye for an eye,” once someone has taken the life of another they should be prepared to also give up their own as a fair trade for the sake of everyone involved – in my perfect world the justice system would work completely along the lines of “eye for eye,” but some people would find dragging someone behind a truck for dragging someone else behind a truck inhumane so we all have to settle for the right of capital punishment. In the end, capital punishment is a vital part of keeping people in check both as punishment for capital offenses and as a deterrent against committing violent crimes in the first place.

9/26/2011
Irving/TX
Marcus A.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
The death penalty should become legalized on state and national grounds. The victim did not ask to become murdered or raped, so the accused should have no choice in whether he or she shall live or not. Perhaps this punishment will be a stern reminder that America was founded with the intention of protecting individual liberty – not with the intention of sheltering criminals from the consequences they deserve. Some people believe that, as humans, we do not have the right to take another person’s life. That’s exactly what should have been patrolling the minds of felons themselves. Their negligence requires repercussions of the strongest sorts. By mercifully vindicating lawbreakers and sustaining them in prison cells, we are supporting such immoral actions, for we are paying for those very jail facilities all the while. Our money, and time, should not be invested in pampering convicts but in showing them that America does not play these sick games. Of course, some may argue that the Eighth Amendment protects us from “cruel and unusual punishments,” but these pertain to times in which we are not held guilty of any crime. If, through enough evidence, a party is found guilty, then he or she should be subject to an appropriate sentence – death if need be. Hopefully, our country will not greatly fear such a dramatic change in our legal system, but it should be this fear that eliminates any and all urges to commit heinous offenses. I’d rather us not go this route.

9/26/2011
Irving/Tx
Vanessa B.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe it is constitutional. Many people deserve the death penalty. People with mental issues do not technically deserve the death penalty. They should be put into a mental hospital. I believe it is right to put certain people to death.

9/26/2011
Irving/Tx
Jennifer J.
Bradley/Nimitz
I'm all for the "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" mind set. Unless you're mentally ill or were forced by gunpoint to kill another human being, there is no excuse. If you decide to take a life, your life should be taken. Understandably, there are circumstances where it seems fit for someone to kill another, but only if that person is willing to forfeit their own life as well. The death penalty makes sure that whoever did something terrible will never be able to do it again. It's not a cruel punishment; it's justice. Granted, the courts better be absolutely positive that their "criminal" is actually guilty of heinous crime(s). Don't get me wrong; I'm pro-execution, but I don't want an innocent to be executed for a crime that they didn't commit. If anything, there should be a certain minimum of amount of evidence that would be needed to put a person on death row; just to be safe.

Related News
Related Resources
Share