this is an open question and please don't tell me because we are a civilized nation..these are animals, not people..and please don't tell me because innocent people have been released from death row. yes, there has been about two who were actually innocent. many were released on tecnicalities, and liberals like to use that statistic in their arguments. do not be mistaken, those people belonged there, but slippery lawyers got them off. some people are such dredge on our society, they are not wired right and can never be normal or an asset to the rest of us. i'm talking about the very violent. and insanity can't be an excuse, still no way to benefit society. an 18 year old given life in prison will cost tax payers over his lifespan the price of a new school! be real, why do we owe these derelicts anything? they have failed and should be exterminated!
2006-09-27 15:10:56 · 15 answers · asked by jstrmbill 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In the state of Illinois, thirteen people on death row were determined by law to be innocent.
"The following are restricted to those prisoners who were released because of court findings of strong evidence of innocence. How can wrongful convictions occur? The Chicago Tribune's expose explains how it has been done in Illinois." http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/illmurder.html
Compare that to the 12 people who were executed in Illinois since 1990. You are delusional if you believe that all people in prison are guilty. It seems that we the people would rather have "someone" arrested and and charged than let a crime go unsolved.
One of the most revealing passages in last year's Tribune series on prosecutorial misconduct described a 1998 deposition in which Scott Arthur, who prosecuted the so-called Ford Heights Four, was asked whether he still believed the men helped commit a 1978 double murder.
"Yes," he said. "I think they did."
And this was after other men--implicated by DNA--had confessed to those murders and been convicted, his former star witness had recanted, and the scientific "evidence" he produced was exposed as worthless.
What are technicalities? They are mistakes and or abuse of power in the name of justice. Sorry, but the laws protect us, from unfair incarceration as well as from criminals.
Yes there are people that we do not want running around killing people. But who ends up getting the death penalty has little to do with the crime committed. Serial killers get life in prison, while a crime of passion gets you death.
The United States is the only "civilized" country in the world that has a death penalty. Why, because the answer to murder is not murder. If people cannot kill, then the state cannot kill.
Our prisons are filled with people convicted on drug charges. The problem is so great that prisons have early release programsreleasing hardened criminals to make room for the new prisoners. Yes, murderers get released so that grandma can go to prison for buying marijuana for her glaucoma. Get militant about that. Rant about the insanity of drug cases getting more time that rapists.
Finally, who gets to decide who is a derelict and ripe for extermination? I didn't say anything when they executed the drug addict because I wasn't a drug addict. I didn't say anything when they executed the pornographer because I wasn't a pornographer. I didn't say anything when they executed the adulterer because I wasn't an adulterer. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me.
2006-09-27 15:33:16 · answer #1 · answered by niuadolescent 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am soooo anti death penalty. And part of my reasoning is that there have been people who were later found innocent. That doesn't mean I want convicted murderers running free. I think it's a worse punishment to have to sit in a tiny jail cell for the rest of your life. (And there have been a lot more than two people who were found innocent.)
I'm disturbed by your argument that these people are not and can never be normal, that they are not an asset to society. Couldn't you make the same argument for mentally and physically handicapped people? Do you think they deserve to die as well?
As for the cost, housing prisoners does cost money. But if you want to talk about money, look at all of the programs that could be used that aren't being taken advantage of. It has been proven that college education systems in prisons dramatically lowers the recidivism rate. The cost of these programs is so much lower than the cost to keep prisoners when they come back after being released. Yet these programs aren't being utilized because of the upfront costs. Prisoners are a captive workforce, and still our government allows jobs to be sent overseas. Wouldn't this be a nice source of revenue for the prison system?
And I have a big problem that so many death penalty supporters are of the Christian conservative/Republican variety. This group will use the argument that all life is sacred when it comes to abortion and stem cell research - why not in this circumstance as well?
2006-09-27 15:33:05 · answer #2 · answered by jax 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
hmmm..... well you have some great points but one thing that you're forgetting is that regardless of what you do, you ARE a person. When you are in the system however, you are a just a person with no rights accept for the ones that our founding fathers who are responsible for all of the freedoms that we as Americans have today said to be "Unalienable", one of which happens to be the right to life. Now, as far as your statement on the convicts "not being wired right", why is it that you think that because a person should be "exterminated" just because he or she has a problem? Should we not do everything in our power to help that individual in need? or does that famous American moral only apply to the people of other countries? Tell me, why dont you have a problem with spending your tax dollars on bombs used to "help and protect" the rights of other people when you have no desire to help your own fellow American citizen? The American people are known as the "big brothers" of the people of the world and for some strange reason people like yourself seem to forget that the big brother rule applies for our own fellow citizens as well. We "knee-jerk liberals" as you may call us believe that we should help the people in prison by offering them counseling and religious base so that they can come out and have a better life, A life that is fit for an American citizen.
2006-09-27 16:43:50 · answer #3 · answered by Pryce B 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What toddlers? final I checked, no toddlers have been in contact in abortion. That would not additionally be abortion, it may well be infanticide. And why might toddlers be interior the womb? they only have been given out of there, might might positioned them back? And why are you addressing professional-abortion human beings? You do be attentive to that there are not a lot of them around, and those that are are not in many situations liberal? professional-decision is what you maximum possibly meant, i'm guessing. See, i like it whilst a individual is counseled and could make the alternative maximum suitable for them. If abortion occurs to be that decision, stable for them. If protecting the toddler occurs to be that decision, stable for them. in the event that they undertake out the toddler, then that's their decision, stable for them. the two way, i'm chuffed. i'm additionally chuffed whilst they have the coaching and equipment they could avert being positioned right into a place the place they're going to could choose for no be counted if to abort, shop, or provide an unplanned toddler up for adoption. I additionally do not help the thought women everybody is animals. that girls everybody is brood mares. that once a individual turns into pregnant, their lives provide up and that they grow to be residing incubators. i think people who can grow to be pregnant have rights only as people who won't be in a position to. This incorporates the suitable to not have their organs, blood, or physique stolen from them or coerced from them with the intention to maintain somebody or something else alive. nicely, besides expenses, why could the government choose for who lives and who would not? Why could a central authority that fairly lots everybody concurs we gained't have confidence have that lots means? a central authority which will provide a harsher sentence to somebody who screws over the song and picture industry than to somebody who sexually assaults, murders, and rapes quite a few women human beings and youngsters. a central authority that, no be counted which party you're speaking approximately, is continuously attempting to strip us of our rights. To me, giving the government that lots means is silly.
2016-10-01 10:57:26 · answer #4 · answered by vanderbilt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's state sanctioned murder! And because it's unevenly applied: poor defandants who can't afford high priced attorneys get the death penalty more often than rich defendants who can hire attorneys who have the luxury of private investigators! And because there's the danger of putting an innocent to death if DNA evidence wasn't used or the eyewitcness testimony was false or the police was corrupt!
2006-09-27 18:01:08 · answer #5 · answered by Shelley 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Bible says an eye for an eye, it also says murder is a sin. But it says you have the right to defend yourself. So.....
Case1: Drug addict shoots up a mom and pop store, killing mom and pop for $25.00: Fry Him.
Case 2: Father of 3 kills burglar in his home at 3am:Give him medal, send him home.
Case 3: John Doe rapes,mutilates,tortures, and murders 10 children before being caught:Fry Him.
Murderers and rapists do not worry about being arrested because they know that a defense lawyer will get them off by saying a movie made them do it, or if not, they will spend their 3 years in prison(after plea-bargain) working out, writing books about their crimes, and earning THEIR law degree so that the NEXT time they kill, they can save money by defending themselves........I love America!
2006-09-27 16:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by Diana 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am a believer in the Death Penalty. The punishment must fit the crime. Those sentenced to the death penalty have taken lives intentionally with no regard to the victim or the victim’s family. If enough of the criminals are put to death, maybe others would think about it before they took an innocent life.
2006-09-27 15:43:39 · answer #7 · answered by 75160 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The problem with the death penalty lies with its unfair and uneven implementation in our justice system. Aside from the fact that innocent men have been put to death and more undoubtedly sit on death row in several states, the penalty itself is applied to a huge range of crimes... Serial killers and deranged murderers who kill in a premeditated, vicious and terrible fashion probably deserve death for what they've done. But I cannot see why a black man who shot someone in a car jacking in 1987 should be put to death, or a husband who killed his wife's lover, or a guy who robbed a liquor store and shot the clerk... those aren't crimes that equate to a death sentence type penalty, yet it happens.
The unfair and unequal application of the penalty itself is what's wrong, and it's a problem that is almost impossible to fix.
2006-09-27 15:24:13 · answer #8 · answered by Casey D 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The cost of all the appeals of a death row inmate far exceeds the cost of housing them for life. These appeals are mandatory under state and federal law.
Do some research before you make unfounded statements.
2006-09-27 16:15:02 · answer #9 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the price of a new school? do you have a source for that? (im not being sarcastic - honestly, it would amaze me if that were true)
im pro-life in every since of the term btw; i think classifying a certiain group of people as animals the crest of a slippery-slope. in that case, lets call mentally retarded people vegatables and unborn babies piles of tissue - that way we can feel good about destroying them too.
and yes, i realize those are innocent groups, while you're referring to criminals - still; i dont support the state's prerogative to kill at will - if the person's been caught; lock them up. and i doubt if its going to cost us the price of a new school to do it.
2006-09-27 15:17:36 · answer #10 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋