US States with the Most Executions

Name the U.S. states that have executed the most people since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1976.
Quiz by march161
Rate:
Last updated: December 23, 2019
First submittedMay 31, 2015
Times taken15,025
Rating4.44
3:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 10 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
#
State
542
Texas
113
Virginia
112
Oklahoma
92`
Florida
88
Missouri
#
State
70
Georgia
60
Alabama
54
Ohio
43
North Carolina
43
South Carolina
+36
Level 66
Jul 28, 2017
Disgusting.
+11
Level 52
Jul 28, 2017
Inexcusable
+36
Level 75
Jul 28, 2017
Absolutely. It will be a fine day when the US joins the civilized world.
+6
Level 76
Aug 10, 2017
Agreed.
+45
Level 72
Nov 11, 2017
Tell that to someone whose daughter was brutally raped and then murdered.
+16
Level 40
Nov 11, 2017
The death penalty is much better then locking someone in solitary confinement for 50 years.
+1
Level 30
Nov 11, 2017
haha like the thousands that all the europeans used to do.
+1
Level 61
Nov 13, 2017
The USA didn't have a death penalty between 1967 and 1976.
+14
Level 58
Nov 14, 2017
Agreed. As a father, I firmly believe someone who has had their daughter raped and murdered is the least rational person in the world to ask about punishment for the offender. Society as a whole should be more thoughtful and considered than a vengeful father could possibly be. The death penalty made sense once (so did hanging-drawing-and-quartering, so did witch burning, so did stoning, etc.), but our society is moving on. Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, and it's more expensive to run the whole grim process than it is to just keep someone in prison.
+3
Level 46
May 31, 2020
Putting a serial killer or serial rapist in prison is a slap on the wrist. They don’t have to pay taxes, rent, bills, or pay for anything else. They get free food and mediocre housing. Also take into account the chances of a criminal, who has been able to get away with crime multiple times, escaping. Who’s to say there won’t be somebody like Yoshie Shiratori becoming a serial killer and escaping every prison they were put into? Should you simply put them back into prison and hope for the best?
+2
Level 55
Mar 10, 2021
I'm not going to take sides here, but your facts are a bit off Kiwi

1. Not defending his crimes or anything, but Shiratori was not a Serial killer, but a thief who was also accused of murder because of his reputation.(Doesn't really matter)

2. Most prison escapes are foiled at the beginning, and the ones that succeed usually get recaptured right away

3. I don't think we will ever see another Shiratori again. The man literally escaped using Miso Soup once, which is insane.

4. Even James Earl Ray escaped prison the first time for a year, but in his second attempt, as recaptured in 3 days.

I don't think the possibility of prisoners escaping is the biggest reason in this arguement.

+9
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
::eye roll::
+8
Level 59
Nov 11, 2017
I disagree.
+7
Level 63
Nov 11, 2017
Now let's see Chinas numbers
+1
Level 55
Jan 12, 2019
I guessed them all with a clue ... They're most populous Republican/flip states (almost)... I got them all in my very first attempt
+8
Level 67
Oct 21, 2019
So you think someone who rapes 100 children doesn't deserve to die? not sure who is the "disgusting" one here...
+6
Level 72
Jul 28, 2017
For killing others very well done. Taking ones life say goodbye to yours
+2
Level 46
Nov 13, 2017
So you'd rather spend valuable government funds keeping a despicable individual in prison for the rest of his/her life? I see a severe lack of logic there.
+10
Level 67
Nov 14, 2017
On average it costs the government more money to carry out the full requirement of a death penalty than it does to house an inmate for life.
+5
Level 78
Jun 27, 2020
+mikeyanderson7 Then that is what should be reformed in the system. One bullet is only a few cents.
+1
Level 43
May 7, 2021
i wish ammo was still so cheap
+18
Level 73
Jul 28, 2017
Are people really giving this quiz lower ratings because they disapprove of the death penalty?
+33
Level 74
Jul 28, 2017
probably. People can't separate facts and statistics from feelings and politics.
+12
Level 63
Jul 28, 2017
It took me the most time to get Missouri. Got all the others fairly easily. But I do agree that it's disgusting that a so-called civilized society still does this.

What's the accent mark after the 92 in Florida for?

+22
Level 59
Nov 11, 2017
I disagree wholeheartedly. Why don't they deserve to die for an inexcusable crime?
+15
Level 70
Nov 11, 2017
How many innocents have been executed? That's the thing. Death is final. No chance for redemption. Punishment must fit the crime. Death fits no crime.
+9
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Chaos, if you believe in punitive or retributive justice (sentences as just punishment), how could death not fit any crime? The crimes of Hitler or Uday Hussein weren't bad enough?

If you believe sentencing should be more concerned about deterrence, rehabilitation, and the good of society as I do, then death would be reserved for those individuals whom are irredeemable and never able to reenter society and whose continued existence will only cause pain to themselves and to others since they are not able to be part of any functioning community.

+11
Level 46
Nov 13, 2017
Kalbahamut, I would be very careful saying something like that, because there's many mentally ill people in state hospitals who fit the categorization you just described. Should they all be executed?
+5
Level 65
Oct 23, 2018
@kalbahamut - "those individuals who are irredeemable": there aren't any. "Never able to reenter society": what do you mean by society? I happen to know that you don't live in society in the same way that most people do. "Whose continued existence will only cause pain to themselves": that's an argument for euthanasia, not the death penalty. The person themself is the best judge of whether they want to carry on existing.
+3
Level 74
Jul 28, 2017
Could use less time. Fast typists can just try all of the states. How do I know this? Because I did it. I WAS just going to guess southern states, but when I saw how much time I figured I'd give it a shot.
+8
Level 71
Jul 28, 2017
Don't 'slow typists' do the same thing only slower?
+20
Level 87
Jul 28, 2017
You could re-title this quiz "States Where It's Not Unusual to See a Bearded Gentlemen Strolling Down the Street with a Rifle on a Tuesday Afternoon" and the results would be exactly the same.
+3
Level 84
Aug 3, 2017
What's your point?
+1
Level 76
Aug 10, 2017
Hahaha
+13
Level 59
Nov 13, 2017
Strange. I've been to all of these states. I've lived in one for over 25 years, and in others for several more years. Never seen any bearded man strolling down the street with a rifle on a Tuesday afternoon. Or any afternoon.
+2
Level 54
Apr 10, 2020
I'll add 16 more years living in...well, not one of these states, but in non-Atlanta Georgia, which is close enough.
+10
Level 65
Jul 28, 2017
I'm sure all of you Dems would say the exact same thing if a quiz was made on number of abortions by state.
+4
Level 72
Aug 23, 2017
that's a great idea for a quiz
+20
Level 64
Sep 30, 2017
Fetuses aren't people.
+1
Level 74
Mar 10, 2021
Foetuses aren't people?
+1
Level 74
Sep 10, 2021
Foetuses aren't people in the law of many countries, especially common law countries, which inherited their legal system from England. The definition of murder in England is pretty much the same as when it was set out by Edward Coke in the 1600s, which is "the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being" to which the words "with malice aforethought" have subsequently been added. I think the USA has replaced "reasonable creature in being" with "human being", but the rest is the same. The "in being" bit means that they exist independently, so a foetus is not "in being" and is therefore not a person.
+16
Level 63
Nov 11, 2017
What a great quiz idea! Oh wait... we wouldn't be able to get reliable statistics since a vast amount of abortions (nearly 50% worldwide) are carried out illegally and in secret, which in turn results in a high mortality rate as these abortions are extremely unsafe. One woman dies every seven minutes due to unsafe abortions, and numerous studies have shown that the legality (or illegality) of abortions has a negligible effect on the total number of abortions, so any questions of fetuses being considered sentient human beings can be avoided. Just ask yourself, which would you rather? One death or two? The fetus is going to die either way, and women aren't going to stop getting abortions.
+9
Level 59
Nov 11, 2017
Safe abortions conducted by specialists can remove the foetus and save the woman. The only reason abortions are carried out illegally all the time is because some absolute idiots see it as unethical when it is, in fact, 100% natural. Many animals will either leave a handicapped child to die or murder it.
+6
Level 46
Nov 13, 2017
MeetsuhSpahkulu so we should be modeling our morality and society on the animal world now?
+1
Level 43
May 7, 2021
Maybe we should have cannibalism too. Many animals do that, so it must be 100% natural
+4
Level 71
Jul 28, 2017
It is for the relatives of the men, women and children brutally murdered to make the judgement. If it was your child, your wife, your husband, your brother, your sister ...... your baby. Then you have the right to say nay or yay. Others are just whistling in the wind.
+18
Level 86
Aug 6, 2017
That's called revenge not justice.
+9
Level 66
Nov 11, 2017
No, you don't. That's precisely why the law calls for a detached magistrate. Personal feelings are anathema to justice. The families of the victims are the last people who should be handing out sentences.
+4
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Disagree with both Malbaby and the self-righteous underinformed nerf herders above talking about the "civilized world." The death penalty might serve a purpose but that purpose should not be punitive. Ideally no judgment should be, at least not entirely.
+1
Level 65
Oct 23, 2018
Agree that judgement is best done by those who can be impartial and that it shouldn't be punitive. Don't think the death penalty serves any purpose in society though, except perhaps in a military context.
+4
Level 54
Apr 10, 2020
So what if someone's wife wants his murderer killed, but the victim's parents don't?

I think this view ties back to a mistaken idea that your loved ones can speak for you. The only person who should really be allowed to make that decision is the victim. And, well, they can't.

+2
Level 69
Jul 29, 2017
Gotta love that southern charm
+2
Level 54
Nov 13, 2017
Fun fact: by percentage of population, Delaware has more executions per capita than Texas. It's population that puts a lot of these states on the list. Even then, by the latter half of the top ten, you're getting close to a heck ton - excuse my 'southern charm' - of New England states. The only reason New York isn't present is because it didn't have the death penalty for most of the time used here (1976-present), and even in these states which did, it was often by razor-thin votes.
+1
Level 55
Dec 10, 2020
Maybe because it has so few people that even 2 or 3 executions would make it higher.
+10
Level 71
Jul 30, 2017
For the holier-than-thou who call it disgusting and uncivilized -- executions are reserved for murders with extenuating circumstances. In other words, the most violent murders including torture and/or rapes. Those people would end up spending the rest of their lives in prison and possibly freed if finding an opportunity with bleeding-heart freaks who think they could be rehabilitated only to kill another innocent person. For those who say that wouldn't happen -- it has. Repeatedly. I actually think it is less cruel to execute someone who never has a chance of leaving prison walls. What kind of life is that? I think the sadists who call themselves civilized enjoy seeing people wasting away in prison.
+7
Level 68
Aug 1, 2017
I personally think, nobody has the right to take somebody's life, neither private people nor the state / government. Additionally don't forget there is no possibility of taking back or correcting an execution. Just think of Todd Willingham...
+5
Level 63
Aug 31, 2017
I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand we all know about the sick kinds of things people have done to others. Whether you heard about it on the news or (like me) watched quite a few documentaries on how cases are solved - which obviously includes knowing what happened. On the other hand I can't say that I'm pro death penalty either. I always imagine a life in prison is way harder. I heard about a guy who got sentenced to 1.000 years in prison and I thought that was ridiculous because no one gets that old but it ensured him never getting out because even if one charge was dropped all the others would keep him in prison. I'm glad I'm not on the deciding end here.
+5
Level 64
Sep 30, 2017
Except that we know innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit and there are serious racial disparities in sentencing. So, no. It's not justice.
+4
Level 85
Nov 11, 2017
Anyone who supports the death penalty, in a legal system that can (and does) make mistakes, is supporting the occasional killing of an innocent person. Many serious criminal cases are very clear-cut; however many others are not. That means that statistically, there is a 100% chance that if you maintain the death penalty for an indefinite amount of time, an innocent person will at some point be killed. If that fact doesn't make you reevaluate your stance, then you are an awful person.
+1
Level 61
May 21, 2018
and that statement makes you a snowflake. by your own admission "many serious cases are clear cut". then the punishment can be imposed. by all means, if there is any doubt, apply a different rule
+3
Level 56
Aug 16, 2019
jkabq - there is always an element of doubt you absolute cretin.
+6
Level 66
Nov 11, 2017
It's disgusting and uncivilized. Murder is murder. The whole reason we punish murder is because it's wrong, so how can the state turn around and murder someone itself? Secondly, your characterization of which cases get the death penalty is inaccurate. It's reserved for felony murder. That does not apply only in cases of rape, etc. If you kill someone while robbing a bank, that's felony murder. Next, your argument that murdering someone is "better" than a life in prison is beyond moronic. Which fate is worse for a person is for that person -- definitely not for you -- to decide. Many prisoners salvage meaning out of their sentences. They get GEDs, learn crafts, find religion, whatever. If they'd prefer to die than live out a life sentence, they can make that decision themselves. To suggest that you're somehow doing someone a favor by executing him is the height of idiocy. But then again, what can you expect out of someone who supports the death penalty? Moron.
+2
Level 46
Nov 13, 2017
All murder is felony murder. You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.
+1
Level 61
May 21, 2018
"Which fate is worse for a person is for that person -- definitely not for you -- to decide". No, we don't allow the criminal to choose his own fate. Moron.
+1
Level 73
Dec 11, 2019
Better to execute 1000 innocent men than to allow one guilty man to go free!!
+2
Level 86
Dec 13, 2019
@MasterKenobi: The felony murder rule is the actual name of a rule of law on the books in most U.S. states. You are correct that all murders are felonies, but not all homicides are murders. Normally, for a homicide to be a murder, there must be an intent to kill. However, in most states that have it, the felony murder rule removes the requirement of intent to kill and provides that a person can be convicted of murder if he or she participated in a specified felony (usually robbery, rape, kidnapping, burglary, or arson) that resulted in somebody's death. In such states, people can be convicted of murder even if they didn't have an intent to kill and even if another participant in the felony was the actual killer.
+1
Level 86
Dec 13, 2019
In most states that have the death penalty, it is reserved for aggravated first degree murder, which often includes but is usually not limited to felony murder. It can often be imposed for, e.g., killing a police officer, killing a young child, killing in exchange for money, etc.
+6
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Because murder isn't murder when it's not murder. :P

Arguing that removing a criminal who cannot be rehabilitated from society humanely is "worse" than keeping them locked in a box forever where great efforts will be made to prevent them from taking their own life and they will be denied the same access to the appeals process that those on death row receive is beyond moronic. If criminals get to choose their own sentences now I'd like to retroactively submit that all those speeding tickets I had to pay steep fines for would be much more civilized if they were sensual massages instead of fines.

The fanatical obsession people have with preserving and prolonging life at all costs and in all conditions no matter what is the height of idiocy. But then again, what can you expect out of someone who believes the death penalty is disgusting and uncivilized?

Do the unsupported insults help my argument any?

+3
Level 66
Nov 12, 2017
No, but if you feel so infuriated by my position that you feel compelled to pepper them in to an otherwise cogent argument, then I would understand. I am so tired of these idiots who feel that years of practiced ignorance entitles them to take a stance on an important subject about which they know nothing.

Most of my comment was substantive. Although my tone was obviously impertinent, I didn't insult the poster until the end, and frankly, I don't feel bad about calling kapulan a moron because kapuluan seems like a moron.

And your characterization of my argument is disingenuous, but since I sense that your goal was to annoy me rather than to take a position, I won't waste my energy refuting it, except to say that a state choosing not to commit murder is hardly the same as letting a prisoner choose his own sentence.

+4
Level 65
Oct 23, 2018
@kalbahamut "Removing a criminal from society humanely" is definitely not the same thing as killing them and it is severely worrying that you think it is. There is nothing humane about execution. This is a lie circulated by people who support the death penalty in order to dismiss those who point out that it is actually not humane. Lethal injections are no more humane than other methods of execution, for example beheading.
+4
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
ECon: If you are against the death penalty because you think the criminal justice system makes mistakes (to use some of your twisted logic) this means you are in favor of occasionally taking some innocent 18 year old, locking them in a box for the next 60 years where they can slowly ruminate on the complete and utter waste that their life has become, effectively tortured by this fact over the course of decades. A sadistic and unnecessary prolongation of the effects of this hypothetical mistake.

If the criminal justice system is flawed, and I believe it is, this is an argument for the reformation and improvement of the criminal justice system. It is not a good argument for or against the death penalty. Currently Americans given the death penalty get FAR greater access to the appeals process than those given life sentences and are much more likely to prove their innocence because of this. This is why people say the death penalty is more expensive. Maybe you are an awful person?

+6
Level 85
Nov 11, 2017
Kalbahamut: You're twisting my words. I believe that it's the lesser of two evils for someone wrongly convicted of a murder to be sentenced to life in prison rather than executed. Both scenarios are absolutely terrible for the person involved, but only 1 of them gives any chance of future exoneration. The criminal justice system will never be 100% fool-proof, so it will always be better to keep someone alive and able to possibly be exonerated in the future, rather than executed and never get that chance. Basically I'm of the opinion that wrongfully executing someone is one of the worst things a country can do, and should be avoided at all costs. The only guaranteed way to avoid that occurring, is for the country to not have the death penalty. If you disagree with that, then neither of us are ever going to change the other person's mind.
+2
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Econ I'm not twisting your words I'm reflecting them back at you as a rhetorical device. Yes i disagree that death is the worst thing you can do to someone. Since once you are dead your suffering is over. I don't believe all life is sacred I think this is an unsupportable religious argument. I think forced confinement is worse. And everyone is going to die sooner or later anyway what matters, if anything matters, is the quality of life, the suffering and joy, of those who are still alive.
+8
Level 66
Nov 12, 2017
You are not nearly as good at this as you seem to think. An 18-year-old can be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but he can later be exonerated and set free -- and this does happen. You can't un-kill him if you've executed him before he is exonerated. It is horrible to send an innocent person to prison for a term of years. It is much more horrible to kill an innocent person. This is the basic and logically valid underpinning of ECon's argument, which you seem intent on obfuscating because you're more concerned with feeling superior to everyone else than with engaging an idea on its own terms. I don't think ECon's argument is the best one, but it's coherent and ordered. It doesn't necessitate, as you suggest, that he supports wrongful convictions. So yeah, you're twisting ECon's words.
+1
Level 48
May 17, 2021
In general, I disapprove of the death penalty. However, for some, it may be necessary. (Mass killers, etc.) Perhaps one should have the choice to be imprisoned for years, or be execueted?
+5
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
caribdevist: endemic racism in the justice system is another issue that should be addressed and corrected. Removing one among many available sentences won't fix the problem here. It's not acceptable to say... hey this group of people seems to be sentenced to death more often than this group. Okay.. let's eliminate that punishment and just sentence them to something else. That fixes nothing. None of you are making relevant arguments. You could by the same logic argue that we should abolish parking tickets... or late fees for those who don't pay their phone bill... being self-righteous and insulting doesn't shore up your argument any, either.
+1
Level 62
Nov 11, 2017
And to think you got uppity at me saying you are a tad sanctimonious?
+1
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Don't know what you're talking about lux. I'm neither sanctimonious nor uppity.
+1
Level 84
Nov 12, 2017
Well thanks for letting us all know.
+1
Level 74
Sep 10, 2021
You are both sanctimonious AND uppity, Kal, but no matter.

Your argument is pretty much the same as that made to me by Robert Blecker once. He agreed that the way the death penalty is meted out is unjust, but that the death penalty itself is justifed. His justification for it is purely based on revenge, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of the US justice system, on paper at least, which is surprising for a Professor of Law.

+1
Level 74
Sep 10, 2021
It's not true that the death penalty is reserved for the worst murders. The death penalty disproportionately affects ethnic minorities; you are far more likely to be sentenced to death if you're a black teenager from a poor background than if you're a white Yale undergrad, for example, regardless of the crime.
+3
Level 81
Aug 3, 2017
You can pretty much type all of the states in this time limit.
+2
Level 65
Sep 20, 2017
92'
+1
Level 59
Nov 11, 2017
The death penalty has been REinstituted in the USA? That's surprising.
+4
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Yep. Here's a selected timeline that I posted on another quiz:

Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846.

Rhode Island in 1852.

Wisconsin in 1853.

Maine in 1887.

The United States Supreme Court effectively banned it altogether in 1972. Though it was reinstated in some places in 1976.

Belarus still allows the death penalty.

Latvia abolished it in 2012.

The Netherlands (in all its territories) in 2010.

Russia in 2009.

Albania in 2007.

the UK in 2006 (Jersey), or 1998.

not that this will stop any European from acting like they are god's gift to humanity. Let's see.. thousands of years of crucifixions, burning people alive, public disembowelment and beheading, displaying decapitated heads on London Bridge, torture, castration of homosexuals, genocide, holocaust, and starting the trans-Atlantic slave trade... but... you (almost) abolished the death penalty on the continent five years ago?? Wow! SO civilized! Give yourselves a cookie

+3
Level 76
Nov 11, 2017
"not that this will stop any European from acting like they are god's gift to humanity"? You sure you aren't perpetuating stereotypes?
+4
Level 58
Nov 11, 2017
Last executions in Great Britain was in 1964 - it was abolished in 1965. It may have lingered on the statutes on some remote parts of the UK due to these places being self governing - but was never used.
+1
Level 62
Nov 11, 2017
I just think Kalby, when dealing w/ppl who can be a tad sanctimonius, the best thing is to laugh at them and watch them being hoist by their own petard. Job done. Cool it my old fruit.
+3
Level 62
Nov 11, 2017
I agree with you that, seen through the prism of history, we Europeans shouldn't get too smug. As you mentioned, several US states abolished capital punishment at at time when Victorian Britain (remember Oliver Twist?) still executed people for petty theft.

Modern days are a bit different, though. For instance a country cannot be a member of the European Union if it practices death penalty. Are there any plans in the US that I'm unaware of to expell states that have capital punishment in their state legislation?

+2
Level 84
Nov 11, 2017
Whoah. I think Kalbahamut just went off the deep end.
+2
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Camus: absolutely. Johnny: so what? Lux: I'm cool and always have been and you're in no position to label anyone produce.
+2
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Priamos: no. But states do enjoy a lot of autonomy when it comes to criminal justice and it's always been that way. Further, while I am neither for nor against the death penalty (I'm against bad arguments, which I see on both sides, and against hypocrisy and self-righteous hypocritical twats whom I see only on one side) - I don't see it as barbaric practiced as it is currently in some parts of the United States and so really no reason to expel those states or suggest that they ought to be. At least not based on this. There are better reasons to cut the south loose.
+1
Level 65
Oct 23, 2018
The death penalty was abolished in 1964 for all offences except treason, and in 1998 for treason (UK). But the Treason Act ceased to be enforced after the second world war (and in the second world war was basically an excuse to execute enemies).
+1
Level 65
Oct 25, 2018
Actually I did a bit of research on that and it's a bit more complicated, but the death penalty was de facto abolished in the UK in 1965.
+2
Level 67
Mar 17, 2021
The argument about European countries is silly. What Europe did to their empires is absolutely terrible and it bothers me a lot that Europe hasn't fully acknowledged or dealt with their legacy of imperialism and genocide properly, but most of that doesn't really have a bearing on Europe today. Many of those countries are, without a doubt, the most prosperous and progressive places on Earth, not just currently but throughout history. And it's not as though America doesn't also have a dark history of slavery, racism, genocide, etc.

Making arguments about how "civilized" a country/group of people is is always an ugly affair. By definition, all of humanity (or the vast vast majority anyways) is civilized... which doesn't stop human rights violations from occurring almost everywhere. Making the "uncivilized" argument does nothing but dehumanizes people.

+1
Level 74
Sep 10, 2021
No EU country has practised the death penalty since they joined the EU. It's a condition of membership.

And using historical barbarism to condemn a modern nation is patently absurd. As is using historical barbarism to justify current barbarism. You may as well say it's justified to execute women for adultery because somewhere, sometime they did the same.

+1
Level 60
Nov 11, 2017
Refuse to answer such a sick quiz
+12
Level 56
Nov 11, 2017
Then why in the world did you click on it? Also how are honest stats "sick"? This quiz is neither endorsing or condemning the death penalty, it is just telling the truth.
+2
Level 55
Jan 8, 2019
"I don't want to answer this disgusting quiz so I'm gonna comment about how I refuse to take it."
+3
Level 65
Nov 11, 2017
Not that it really matters, but there's an apostrophe on Florida's number.
+3
Level 49
Nov 11, 2017
Quiz is good. My opinion about the issue: Death penalty is not penalty. It's revenge. I understand that example islamic countries has death penalty because Koran teaches to revenge, but christian country should not do that because New testament teaches not to revenge. Penalty should always be smaller than the crime. Otherwise it's revenge.
+2
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
I see bad arguments on both sides and on the "for" side it usually is because people in favor of the death penalty often believe justice should be punitive. To believe in this requires belief in free will. Which to me is not supported so I see this as a religious argument and therefore not compelling.

On the "against" side most arguments come down either to cultural chauvinism or to the idea that all life is sacred. The latter belief also cannot be supported. It's a religious argument and therefore not compelling.

Very few people on either side make rational arguments about what's objectively good for society or those affected by the crime or application of justice. When they do they are often weak arguments... A thin veneer that if you tug on slightly will reveal the revenge or biophilia motives at the root of each rationale.

+5
Level 56
Nov 11, 2017
Saying every life is sacred is in no way just a religious belief, many non religious people believe it. Also a very common argument, and the one I use, is that there are many documented cases of innocent people being convicted and killed. That is not acceptable.
+2
Level 67
Nov 13, 2017
You don't believe in free will? So then what DO you believe determines a person's actions?
+2
Level 65
Oct 23, 2018
Some simplistic arguments do work though. Basically my opposition to the death penalty (along with most other people's) comes down to the idea that killing people is bad. It's not controversial. And to make an exception to it there needs to be a pretty good reason. The "good of society" isn't really enough under most circumstances. Anyone can claim that are doing something to improve society. If we make exceptions to a basic axiomatic principle then that will just lead to more exceptions.
+1
Level 67
Mar 17, 2021
I feel like saying the "sanctity of life" is not a valid reason doesn't really make sense. For one, as nypackerfan says, it's not just a religious argument, it's a value shared by many people regardless of race, class, or creed. Perhaps more importantly, literally any argument you can make revolving around the death penalty will inevitably involve moral arguments that can't be proved. And yes, that includes Kal's arguments. How can you prove that criminals on death row would prefer the death penalty to life in prison? There's no way to prove that statement unless you collect data from a large number of death row inmates on their views of death vs life imprisonment.

Usually I think logical arguments are important, but this the capital punishment debate is one place where logic falls apart. How do we, as individuals, know what's best for society? How do we decide what is best for the criminals and their families? There are no good answers to these questions.

+1
Level 67
Mar 17, 2021
If I could guess though, I feel that killing someone instead of locking them up for life doesn't really have any effect on society as a whole, but it would certainly cause pain to the loved ones of the executed criminal. I think those people would take comfort in knowing that they can still see their friend/family member/significant other, and that they have a chance at rehabilitation, even if those chances are slim. If no one gains from the death penalty and even a few people lose, I don't think it benefits the "greater good."

Are there people who deserve to die? Probably. In extreme circumstances, like for people who commit war crimes and serious human rights violations, I'd be okay with the death penalty. There are several Latin American countries (Chile, Brazil, El Salvador) that have adopted this model. Notably though, most of those countries haven't had to use the death penalty in decades.

Outside of these cases, I really don't think we have a right to decide who lives or dies.

+1
Level 58
Nov 11, 2017
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image.

Genesis 9:6

+2
Level 82
Nov 11, 2017
Curious coming from the same book where God commands people to smash babies against rocks in an act of genocide. As well as prescribing the death penalty for everything from saying a naughty word to picking up sticks on a Saturday.
+1
Level 52
Nov 11, 2017
pretty much any state below the bible belt, makes total sense
+1
Level 38
Nov 12, 2017
Proud of my state.
+1
Level 25
Nov 13, 2017
my state is number 8
+2
Level 64
Dec 21, 2017
It's quite sad that the numbers are so low. Western civilization has become so soft and people are so hesitant to take the proper measures to deter criminal activity.
+5
Level 65
Oct 23, 2018
There is no evidence that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent than life in prison.
+5
Level 53
Feb 19, 2019
I know you're trolling/joking, but if it were a deterrent then the numbers would logically go down. Something seems to be seriously wrong in Texas that they have all this crime, despite the harsh punishment.
+1
Level 44
Apr 19, 2018
I live in Ohio and I forgot it :/

But boy do I love the south!

+1
Level 55
Jan 12, 2019
I guessed them all in my very first attempt. The clue was the most populous Republican/flip states and I was totally right.
+1
Level 53
Feb 19, 2019
Texas > next 6 combined.

Always leading the way!

+1
Level 38
May 1, 2019
Condemning someone to an entirely meaningless and joyless life for the rest of their days is more civilized than the death penalty? Okay then.
+4
Level 74
Oct 21, 2019
For one, the average time between conviction and execution is 16 years. Secondly, if you set up your prisons properly, it doesn't have to be meaning- and joyless. Thirdly, if a person is innocent, you can release them, but you can't unkill them. Roughly 4% of people convicted to death are believed to be innocend.

And lastly: Doesn't it bother you, that your government has the right to offhandedly decide about your lifes worth? Criminals are citizens and any government has to take an oath to protect them. If they have no problem breaking this oath, how can you trust them to stand up for you?

+3
Level 57
Aug 13, 2020
Damn Texas chill out
+1
Level 55
Dec 10, 2020
The US criminal justice system has its flaws. Kinda weird how Gary Ridgway, a man who killed 48 people at least, isn't given the death sentence.
+1
Level 69
Mar 12, 2021
For the people crying about how uncivilized it is, last time I checked Japan was civilized and still has it as a punishment.
+1
Level 74
Sep 10, 2021
All the usual arguments seem to have been made, but here's a couple of things for death penalty proponents to think about:

Gerald Gardiner QC once pointed out that it would be a strange person who considered death a deterrent to committing a crime, but life in prison insufficient deterrent.

When Canada abolished the death penalty, the rate of capital crimes went down, while the rate of conviction for capital crimes went up. This suggests that the death penalty is no deterrent, but it does deter juries from convicting if their decision will result in the death of the accused.