thanks.
2006-07-13 08:53:13 · 15 answers · asked by water is poison 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Its no deterrent but it definitely keeps the criminal off the streets.
2006-07-13 08:57:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The concept of justice. If you take $5 from somebody, then you owe them $5. That's justice, right? You give back what you stole? Well, what if you take something that you can't replace? Like an arm, or leg, or life? Wouldn't justice dictate that by depriving somebody of something that is irreplacable, justice would be to deprive you of the same thing? If you take somebody's life, no amount of money, no amount of time in jail can equal what you took from that person. Is it fair that the killer can laugh, cry, think, or feel when the killed can not? The only possible form of justice for a murderer is to take their life. Anything less is an insult to the murdered and a travesty of justice.
Added after seeing some other answers I had to add this: capital punishment is a deterrant, if used properly. There were 16,000+ murders last year in the U.S., there were only 30 or so executions (have to look up exact numbers, but 30 is close). Of course if you don't actually follow though with the punishment it is not a deterrant, nobody takes it seriously. Now, let's say that one year there was 16,000 murders and 16,000 executions of the murderers. I garuntee you the next year there would be almost no murders, because people would actually take the threat of capital punishment seriously.
2006-07-13 09:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're probably going to need to address at least two broad themes:
1) The people being executed are not innocent. In other words - do the procedural safeguards currently (or potentially) in place in the legal system adequately ensure that only the truly guilty are put to death?
2) That capital punishment is preferable to life imprisonment. In other words - is the death penalty cost justified? Does the death penalty better meet the valid interests of any theory for the justification of criminal law: punishment, retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation?
2006-07-13 09:01:23 · answer #3 · answered by JoeSchmoe06 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well
There are no repeat offenders after capital punishment
Its more humane punishment than 40 years of prison
It is disposal of very dangerous people
Newer research shows some deterrent effect but its not strong
you could argue (even with all the litagation ) its more affordable than a life sentence
It is the will of the people!
2006-07-13 08:57:49 · answer #4 · answered by mike c 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who isn't professional-existence? The argument look, by technique of maximum sane human beings, to even as existence starts. I actual do not condone the suspension of a lady's top to freedom of action besides. It concerns very a lot to me that we are careful contained in the taking of human existence, and the compelling by technique of regulation of a lady's movements. Texas has a particularly sound equipment. It calls for overwhelming justification to value someone with a capital offense. maximum weak circumstances are vetted contained in the Grand Jury hearings. it truly is therefore on my own, that such distinctive executions ensue in Texas, because so few are overturned after the thorough early scrutiny of capital circumstances. this may be an effective equipment to undertake nationwide. some each and every individual is so obviously only a probability to society as to warrant demise, yet this severe ought to only be used contained in the utmost circumstances and with poor scrutiny.
2016-12-01 05:34:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If DNA evidence is conclusive and guilt is established I think government is obligated to protect the rest of society. Too often we hear of those out on parole that kill again and are a danger to us all. Why should taxpayers spend about $35K a year keeping them in jail? Why should someone spend so many years on death row appealing all over the placeand costing money and wasting the courts time? Our justice system needs fixing.
2006-07-13 09:02:44 · answer #6 · answered by Maria b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but I can't think of any compelling reason to favour the death penalty. It costs more to keep a person on death row than it does to keep them in prison for life. If you execute someone for a crime, they effectively are freed from the guilt. They are freed from knowing that they will never known freedom again, provided life imprisonment MEANS exactly that.
Then there is the issue of whether or not you had the right person. How many innocent people have been wrongly executed? You can release an innocent person from prison- you can't bring them back to life if you wrongly execute them.
2006-07-13 10:12:33 · answer #7 · answered by darth_timon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capital punishment should be listed right up there with Darwin Awards individuals. If stupid enough to commit a capital crime your good enough to die for it. My point being use capital punishment to filter out the evil in our country. For those who wish to turn the other cheek, talk to me after one of these people kill someone you love.
2006-07-13 08:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by Ray B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no benefit to capital punishment, except for revenge.
2006-07-13 09:00:50 · answer #9 · answered by Alex R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the long run, when the death row inmate is finally put down, it saves tax payers money. At least we don't have to feed and house him or her anymore.
2006-07-13 08:57:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty's main objective IS NOT deterrence, it's punishment for the crime.
2006-07-13 09:43:39 · answer #11 · answered by gunsandammoatwork 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋