Because the possibility of executing a mistakenly convicted innocent person is horrific to some.
Me? I'd rather just execute them after the first appeal, and close the case to further investigation.
2006-08-06 12:03:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
They don't "let" them live so long, the convicts choose to appeal over and over again, because most of them want to live. And when they appeal 8 billion times this essentially buys them even more time. Nonetheless, a good example of a quick death penalty case is Timothy McVeigh. He didn't want to appeal his verdict in the Oklahoma City Bombing case so he was executed after only 6 years (this is quick when you consider most inmates sit on death row for at least 10 years.)
2006-08-06 23:34:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Shawnie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that what happens is just the opposite: a well-managed death penalty cuts at a significant statistical level the lives of condemned people.
2006-08-06 19:04:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frederico B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In order to try to be good and sure that nobody is wrongfully executed (even though there are still mistakes made). This isn't necessarily such a bad thing - it gives the possibly wrongfully convicted time to maybe get things straightened out, and who cares if the rightfully convicted have to sit and rot and think about it for twenty years....
2006-08-06 19:15:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by WhiteLilac1 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
They have appeal's that they have to go through and some can take many year's. Why not go ahead and put them to death? After all their hollering about the prison system being over crowded.
2006-08-06 19:03:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by RuneDragon 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Often, the left, does not want anyone's actions tied to any type of responsibility. Look how worked up they get when someone is finally made to atone for their crime. ie. andrea yates (retried) and found not guilty even though she said she drowned her children instead of shooting them because it would be less mess to clean up. The #$^&* jury was wrong. Tookie williams, etc... and the list goes on. Now kill an innocent baby and again we see, "don't make anyone responsible for their actions...
2006-08-06 19:03:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by TexasDave 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The criminals have a certain number of appeals they can use up and this can take years; plus, do you realize how many innocent people they've determined in recent years have died? Since DNA is now so advanced, many, many innocents were killed for a crime(s) they did not commit!
2006-08-06 19:05:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by sweet ivy lyn 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
because there is always appeals (which the defense is entitled to), that keeps the trial last forever especially with consequences so great. then there is also a grace period for future evidence and possibly repaying some debt to society
There is more places about political opinion and questions at http://www.tratosnow.com/exchange.html
2006-08-06 19:05:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by abcd 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
proably to let the criminal to ponder on his crimes and to suffer knowing he is going to die like a dog
2006-08-06 21:11:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Legal Eagle 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
it shouldn't....it's one of the many gross faults with our justice/penal system.
2006-08-06 19:03:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Kiss my Putt! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋