Be administered faster than it is today? Who decides what or why a confessed prisoner is kept alive? Why is the death penalty not given right away?
2006-08-22 06:22:27 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
YES! It should be carried out immediately upon sentencing. The laws decide because everyone is entitled to due process meaning the appeal process has to be exhausted before sentencing can be carried out. That's why the death penalty is not given right away.
2006-08-22 09:23:12 · answer #1 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Studies show that a vast majority of capital cases are found to contain errors on appeal. It is the appeals process that "slows down" the actual administration of the punishment, but it is also the appeals process that protects the interests of "justice" to make sure that BOTH sides in the trial that resulted in a death penalty played by the rules. Since many defendants facing the death penalty are indigent, they are assigned counsel by the state. Sometimes these attorneys are quite skilled; many times, however, they are not. Some have been found attending trial drunk, or sleeping through parts of the trial. These are some of the difficulties in the system of administering the death penalty that make it inherently unfair, in my opinion.
With respect to your reference to "confessions," much research has been conducted on the true "voluntariness" of confessions by persons accused of committting crimes. Even in cases where a defendant is "caught red-handed" s/he is still gauranteed certain Constitutional safeguards throughout the trial and appeals process.
2006-08-22 13:34:34 · answer #2 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A couple of years ago a DNA study showed that 30 % of the people awaiting execution in Illinois were INNOCENT of the charges they were tried on. 30 % is an unacceptable failure rate anywhere--it would be unacceptable in air flight, automobiles, accounting, and it is certainly unacceptable in the killing of people. Why take any chance of killing an innocent person? It could be YOU, or someone you love. You really do not want to meet God with innocent blood on your hands. That is something to avoid at all costs. Better to lock em up, they can be freed if they are later found to be innocent. Here in Cal the state recently released a guy who spent 28 years in prison for murdering a little child, and DNA evidence showed he could not possibly have done it. So he lost 28 years of his life, but at least he was not murdered. The death penalty is wrong, please don't give in to blood lust.
2006-08-22 13:40:52 · answer #3 · answered by jxt299 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we must be certain the person is actually guilty. Confessions are often false, the result of coercion. Witnesses often lie, intentionally or otherwise. Juries vote according to emotion rather than cold, hard facts and evidence. This is why I am opposed to the death penalty. Too much chance of executing an innocent person.
2006-08-22 13:32:54 · answer #4 · answered by banjuja58 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. Are legal system is such that it's way too easy for innocent people to be convicted of crimes so in the case of a death penalty every avenue should take place to protect the innocent.
2006-08-22 13:31:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the reason is, that there are many appeals. This is to prevent someone who is actually inocent from being executed. There have been a few (very rare) occasions where new technology, such as dna evidence, has proven someone innocent.
Unfortunately, the process is abused to just buy time for the rest of the dirt bags.
2006-08-22 13:31:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, if there is no doubt, they admitted to it.. or the evidence is over welming... go for it... give them 30 days to appeal and then off to the "room".. I know some people think that is mean.. but why should our tax dollars be feeding murdersand child molesters when that money could go into education and raise the salary of our law enforcement and firefighters...
2006-08-22 13:31:32 · answer #7 · answered by kutskova29 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have to give the condemned person a chance to appeal. Just in case. I think it is a good idea. But it shouldn't go on for years.
2006-08-22 13:29:39 · answer #8 · answered by sassyk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your lucky you have it as a sentence.
Here in the UK we are not even offered the chance to vote on re-instating capital punishment.
2006-08-22 13:30:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They give punishment in the capitol?
2006-08-22 14:13:09 · answer #10 · answered by yahoohoo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋