Why aren't murderers executed immediately?

Question

I don't understand why our court system has such a long trial, and sometimes the murderer just gets a life sentence. They should be killed right away, as soon as possible.
(And I mean the killers who kill on purpose and it's a proven fact.)

Loveben: No need for name calling, ok? Act a little more mature if you can. Besides, spending your life in prison isn't a better choice when you consider many times prisoners get out early or escape and kill more innocent people.

Answer 1

Couldn't agree more! Why waste the taxpayers' money to keep them alive in prison??? Makes NO sense to me!!!

Answer 2

I work at a prison and deal with a quite a number of murderers. It is amazing what you learn about and how ones opinion can change. Once upon a time I was all for the death penalty, but after working where I do I find that I would rather have a murder living next to me than a sex offender any day of the week. But I digress, in response to your comment about killing them right away...one fellow that we have is in on 1st degree stint (must serve 30 years before even eligible for parole) he killed the guy who sodomized and raped his 10 year old niece. Should we go ahead and kill this guy? How about the guy who killed his step-dad for beating his mother? What if someone hurt your family, wouldn't you want to "kill" that person? Oh boy then we get to kill you. People need to think and think all the way through, know the facts before going off on a tangent. (Kinda like what I just did. :) oops.) I could go on and on...

Answer 3

I see what you're getting at, but the problem with capital punishment is that there is a possibility that you may be putting to death the wrong person. Forensic evidence is not entirely conclusive.

The reason why there is a long trial and process is because it gives it time for the convicted murderer to appeal his case.

For example, what happens if you were convicted of a murder you didnt commit, and you were sentenced to death 24 hours right after the event. That wouldn't be just would it? No.

Answer 4

Because a "proven fact" can be disproved. I'm thinking of all the convicted murders scheduled for death row who were exonerated by modern DNA testing, and I shudder to think of how many innocent people died before DNA testing was used. Even people who commit murder deserve a fair trial by their peers...that's one of the reasons the Founding Fathers wrote that into the first laws of this country. Just b/c I am convinced they are guilty does not make it so. And what about the woman who kills her abusive husband because he planned to take her life. Sure, murder is still wrong, and she had other options, but does she deserve to die, too? If you agree that certain exceptions to a mandatory death sentence exist, then where do you draw the line? Who deserves to live and who deserves to die? That's why we leave it up to a jury of our peers and a judge to make those decisions. It's not the most efficient system, but it usually is fair, and it's far more fair than just putting everyone to death.

Answer 5

the last thing is the kicker, when someone is conviceted it's supposed to be 100% there's no way he didn't do it. Innocnent until proven guilty. There is no "well were not totally sure on this one, we'll just give him life in prision." And of course you have to realize the juries, the judges, and the lawyers have someone's life in their hand. They have to be sure. Then of course after it's all said and done the governor should be reviewing the case leading up to the execution to make sure he doesn't want to stop it.
I think, from an outsider's looking in prespective, the solution is more funding for DNA labs. The lack of DNA tests seems to be the biggest reason trials somtimes are overturned.

Answer 6

Murderers are not killed quickly because of the appeal process that was placed in affect by the federal government.....

I agree that if it is a proven fact..then yes..the person should be put to death..

ALTHOUGH...
In the United States..it is written that a person has to be proven guilty only "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"...that is the reason for the appeal process....

Answer 7

There's no way to be sure, to hve it be a proven fact. In the last decade, DNA evidence has exonerated (proven to be innocent) over 100 people on death row. If those persons had been "killed immediately" as you suggest, then we as a country would have executed over 100 innocent people. There's probably alot more innocent persons out there wrongfully on death row as it is. "Life without parole" is a much better sentence.

Answer 8

If the inmates convicted of murder were killed right away, there would be a huge loss in the productivity of the prison labor force.
Starbucks uses prison labor for packaging.
Dell uses prisoners for computer recycling
Boeing, Victoria's Secret, and Eddie Bauer have subcontracted with companies using low-cost prison labor to manufacture everything from aircraft components to lingerie and software packages.

Answer 9

Because you conservative reject, they have the right to appeal their conviction, and that process can take years. And besides I would rather see these guys rot in prison, Taking it up the rear from a 6' 8" 350Lbs prisoner for the rest of there life is worse punishment than death. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Answer 10

First you have to prove they are indeed murderers. Then there is a thing called humanity. Just killing people won't solve the problem. Some murderers aren't afraid of death and want it. Instead try to help them. If that fails then being alive in prison is enough punishment.

Answer 11

In the old west they had a trial and then they hung them from a tall oak tree but in modern times a person who is on death row has many appeals and exhausts all of them this can take years and years for it to work through the system.