More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Household (Non-Married Couple) voters
Last answered 54 minutes ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Household (Non-Married Couple) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Aug 18, 2012. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Household data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
5 years ago by thefreethoughtproject.com
5 years ago by indiatimes.com
5 years ago by afr.com
5 years ago by smh.com.au
5 years ago by indiatimes.com
6 years ago by bbc.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
Only in circumstances where there is no other way to prevent imminent danger to other's lives. 6 years ago from a Libertarian in Houston, TX
Repeated Offenders, Taking someone Life for No Reason, Time to Recycle. 6 years ago from a Republican in Falmouth, ME
Who are we to decide? He whose is without sin can cast the first stone. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Seattle, WA
No, because punishment of life in prison would have a much greater effect on criminals. It would give them a chance to think about their crime and reflect on what they did. This also gives the falsely accused a chance at escape. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Bala Cynwyd, PA
Death penalties do not work as a deterrent. Lifetime confinement in a cell, sealed off from all other living beings with no chance of ever leaving the cell, no radio, no tv, no books, toys or any other materials might make people think twice about... 6 years ago from a Democrat in El Segundo, CA
No death penalty, but the person being tried for the crime has the right to request death (similarly to terminally ill patients) if they wish to die instead of living out a sentence. Federal Government cannot kill people, it is not moral even if it is... 6 years ago from a Democrat in Minneapolis, MN
No, because that's just a horrible way to be killed. The suspect should have a choice to either get the death penalty?...it depends on what their charges are. I feel like it's never about...actually giving evidence about why the suspect is... 6 years ago from a Republican in Washington, DC
The death penalty does nothing to deter crime and the system needs an overhaul. Make time in jail hard work with shorter sentences. If a person has committed a heinous crime, they should get life, but still have long days of hard work. The only thing... 6 years ago from a Democrat in Portland, OR
Yes, but not as a deterrent. Only in the case where someones very nature, such as the sexual orientation of child molesters as pedophiles, is counter-intuitive to the safety and prosperity of a society and rehabilitation is incapable of reforming said... 6 years ago from a Green in Canton, GA
Yes but only under circumstances where the evidence is undisputed that the heinous crime resulting in the death of another has been committed. If any doubt has been raised in the evidence, the person should not be killed. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Dallas, TX
I am conflicted, I understand the need on very heinous crimes, but also think it is more revenge than justice. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Signal Hill, CA
Yes, but it should not be left up to the states. The federal government should administer capital punishment. 6 years ago from a Socialist in Clementon, NJ
No, no person has the right to end another persons life for their actions they should only be punished and not send to death. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Indianapolis, IN
The Federal Government does not have the right to pick someone up off the streets, put them in a cage and then murder them, no matter what they've done. 6 years ago from a Libertarian in Laguna Niguel, CA
If you kill somebody, and are proved to that crime, what do you think you're gonna get back? Not a Fed issue. A State by State issue. 6 years ago from a Republican in Nashville, TN
Case by case basis. Serial killers that can not stop there's not really a choice and it's not fiscally feasible to keep them alive, but someone who can be rehabilitated or offer something good to society should be kept alive. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Portland, OR
Only in cases of irrefutable evidence, including finger prints, DNA, video or audio, photos from security surveillance and eyewitness testimony. Also double proof that the prosecutor has turned over all exculpatory evidence to avoid killing someone who... 6 years ago from a Democrat in New York, NY
Yes, but only for cases where the perpetrator has a diagnosed mental condition linked to multiple violent criminal acts, which cannot be treated. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Medina, WA
No government, neither state nor federal, should permit death as a response for punishment. It is only justified in an emergency. 6 years ago from a Republican in New York, NY
No, but on some necessary cases. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Minneapolis, MN
No more sitting on death row for ages. In cases where there is multiple witnesses corroborating, DNA, video or other unimpeachable evidence let the victim or their survivors shoot the convicted. I am okay with them missing a few times. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Phoenix, AZ