Do you believe in the Death Penalty? Why or Why Not?

Question

Personally, while I understand why the families of victims would want to seek retribution, I believe that we should not base our legal system on the raw emotions of traumatized people.

Also, the appeals process costs taxpayers far more than just locking them up.

Answer 1

There are some crimes that can be repeated, that just locking the person away isn't enough--they could be released someday. Look at the JonBenet case. The guy is also accused of molesting another little girl, he was found in Thailand, where families sell their daughters as sex slaves, and who knows what else he's done. Child molestors rarely change. The same with mass murderers. I think if the person falls into one of these categories, or if they have shown that they will be a danger to society if they are ever let out, the death penalty is reasonable. Protection of society is a major part of punishment. I had a criminal law professor one time who would disagree completely with your last statement, too. He felt that the death penalty was proper if the crime was so terrible that it shocked society as a whole. And the "traumatized people" aren't the ones deciding the sentence, it's the jury, the representatives of society. If they are shocked enough by the crime that they agree with the victims, and that counters any argument the defense might put forth, I think that should be enough for them to impose the death penalty.

Answer 2

yes and no. I think there should be a death penalty, but i believe that it should be done when they catch the person. Why waste all that time and money? OK, that was slightly sarcastic... But I do think that when there is no doubt in the facts of the case, i.e. caught on video, caught on audio, uncoerced signed confession, all evidence leads to suspect, then there should be no appeals. Also, get rid of the fancy methods. I say shoot them in the head when they least expect it. That way there is not "undue" suffering. There is no anxiety over when it is going to happen. It could be right after the trial, or two weeks later. just don't tell them that this is an option... slightly less sarcastic... I do believe that there are some people who serve no purpose on this earth other than to harm others and they need to go away...

Answer 3

This is really tought...and a great question by the way....but for some crimes...YES...murder of a child......or very violent murders like serial murders....where you know that no matter how much time this person has to "think" about the crime...that they will NEVER be reformed........I don't believe in death row though. I believe if the person has been given a death sentence....then they should be given death.....if there is no doubt in the jury's and the judges mind or if the person confessed..then get it finished. They obviously didn't give the victim a choice.....Sitting on death Row for year after year..is a waste of money and time.
But...on the other hand....if it was an act out of anger or rage or because of an accident....then I believe there is a chance or redemption. Then there is remorse and the person will likely never again be involved in a crime like this..
Like I said it is touchy and I'm gonna watch this question...I'd like to read the remarks you get.....I think you should get 10 points for this question.

Answer 4

The death penalty is supposed to repay a criminal's wrong to society for the crime. But death is death, state sanctioned or not. If they really want some good to come from the death penalty, they should ( hold on cause this is out there ) use the corneas and eyes so some types of blindness can be cured, use a good heart, liver, kidneys, etc. for people who need them and face an imminent death. You ask, "who would want the eyes of a convicted criminal?" My answer is, let the blind person decide if they want to see again, the kidney patient on dialysis if they want normal functioning kidneys, etc. etc. At least this way, several people ( society ) are leading better, more productive lives and the murder of the convict them has done more than just another legalized murder.

Answer 5

There is no way to prove it is a deterrent or not. I know the thought of being put to death is a deterrent to me. So is being locked up for life though. But I still think that I would rather just be put in a cell and given three squares a day forever than put to death.

I support it because I support the idea of retribution. I am not basing my support on raw emotions. The idea of punishing someone for committing crime is to make them pay for what they did. When someone commits the most heinous offenses they should pay with their life. It is a fitting punishment. Someone being locked up for life is not a high enough payment in my opinion when they, for example, walk up to a police officer and decide to kill him.

I also support the idea because there is a zero rate of recidivism. There are still crimes committed in prison. The guards who deal with murders put their lives on the line and other prisoners get killed often. If someone is put into the category qualifying them for capital punishment they are likely to be a risk to others as long as they are alive.

Most people are opposed to it not because of the penalty itself but because of the error rate. This is fine but is not really being opposed to the death penalty. Rather, it is being opposed to its implementation. There is a difference. We should not simply do away with it because innocent people are put to death because they would also be locked up. Neither one is right. We should make every effort to assure that the right person is convicted all of the time. I will submit that in capital cases more attention is paid to the actual details then in a non capital case. Thus, making the error rate lower than that of non capital cases. This does not mean that there is not room for improvement. However, I am more confident that someone convicted on a capital offense is actually the criminal than in an inmate in general population.

I do not support the idea of putting children or the mentally ill to death but if the accused is old enough and/or able to understand that there is a price for committing a crime it should be a viable option.

Answer 6

Almost all inmates agree with it as well as most citizens. I do not think that it has a thing to do with easing the survivors' feelings and desire of revenge. When a case is soooo bad to warrant the death penalty and when the evidence is so totally overwhelming at to render guilty, then society merely says to remove that person exactly like one would remove a cancer from a body in order to allow it to function normally. It has nothing to do with revenge at all. It only has to do with removing a person who has shown the ability to act less than human. That is all. If the victim of the crime has no remaining relatives, then there is no one desiring revenge is there? There is only the matter of eliminating someone who will do farther harm to the innocent.

Answer 7

I'll never shed a tear for someone who is executed.

However, if it were up solely to me, we would not have the death penalty:

A.) It's not a deterrant. No one commits a crime thinking they're going to get caught.

B.) Barring a confession, there is ALWAYS a chance you have the wrong person.

C.) Inmates have their own method of meting out justice. If I were convicted of raping some child, I'd rather die than be sent into General Population.

BTW, in the Bible, God gives the state the right to take life justifiably. That's one reason we can wage war. So spare us the Pro Life rhetoric.

Answer 8

Funny that we should punish someone for murdering by doing the same to them. An eye for an eye I suppose. To me, that's a very third grade to handle a situation. "well, he hit me, so I hit him back." It's not only hypocritical, but childish. They say that death is the worst penalty for these "wrongdoers" but I say, isn't a life in prison, alone, worse? Death is giving them an easy way out, and the families of the victims should realize that the person who did whatever to thier loved one is locked up in a cold jail cell with no possibility for bail, or whatever. They also need to realize that the death of said murderer will not bring thier missed one back.

Answer 9

The fact that our prisons are becoming luxurious and on the same par as a 5* hotel is demanding a rapid and radical change to the prison and sentencing system.

Without it - then the death penalty will have to be incorporated as a form of punishment. If the death penalty is brought in then it should be used only in dead cert situations.

But - I could never be that person to push the button etc. A Catch 22 situation

Answer 10

No. The American judicial system is not about justice or right and wrong. It is about whose lawyer can put on the best show and confuse the issues to the point where no one can tell what is right and what is wrong and what the letter of the law actually means. Prosecutors get elected and re-elected from CONVICTIONS, not from issuing justice. Judges get elected and re-elected by being "tough on crime" which translates to convictions; not issuing justice. High dollar defense attorneys command their price by their ability to "bend" the definition of the law and the perception of reality to the point of denying prosecutors and judges (as well as juries) the ability to be "tough on crime".

As long as the American judicial system is at best, a crap shoot, and at worst, bought and sold to the highest bidder, I will have to be against capitol punishment.