The Death Penalty- Yeay or Nay?

Question

Is it justice or revenge? Does the government have the right to execute people, and if so who should decide whether a person deserves death?

Answer 1

NAY! There are to many flaws in our system to allow Capital Punishment. One of the biggest ones is that if your statue of limitations has run out in most states and someone can prove your innocent.... You are history it doesn't matter even if they have the person that is truly guilty for the crime you are going to die for, you still die. Then there is the whole issue of cruel and unusual punishments... there have been so many botched executions, people's veins collapsing when it comes to lethal injection, people in the electric chair not dying but instead clothing and skin burning but them still living, the list goes on. Look it up on the web im not lying. Amnesty International has some great resources. Then there is the whole cost... it actually costs more to kill them than to keep them alive. Then there is the moral issue of an eye for an eye (hmmm does that meant the one that flipped the switch should die too?) Please, I beg you research this one if you are unsure. I thought I knew what was right until I wrote a paper for a poli sci class I went from pro to anti so fast its not even funny.

Answer 2

My answers to your questions are: Yes, it is justice, the government and a court of law are the only ones that have the right to determine that sentence, and it has to be done in a court of law with stricter standards than just being guilty. To me the ultimate test is if this person will be a future threat to society if they are ever released.

The Death Penalty is a harsh sentence, the harshest that society can give.

If a person killed 15 people then how can his one death pay back that crime? Why don’t we kill him 15 times! You can medically induce a heart attack and then bring them back with a defibrillator. Of course this would be cruel and unusual punishment and it would be illegal according to the 5th amendment. The Death Penalty has been challenged several times in the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being cruel and unusual punishment, it has been upheld each time.

I have mixed feelings about the Death Penalty. People claim that it isn’t a determent to crime; people still murder each other. I also think that that it is used too often, my state is famous for it.

However, the Death Penalty does have some advantages. It is the ultimate determent for the murder. John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, will never kill anyone again. Even if he was given a life term for each person that we know he killed, he would still be a threat to his guards and other prisoners. What’s to stop him from committing murder in prison? Are you going to give him another life term? That wouldn’t be a determent. And if he should escape then he will go back to murdering people again. However, if the Death Penalty was a possibility then he might think twice about committing another murder. We can’t ask him if this is so, because he is dead, and I think that is a good thing.

Charles Manson is as crazy as ever. He built a “family” and inspired them to go on a killing spree. Charles Manson wants to do nothing more than to incite hate and violence. To that end he has had a tattoo or brand of the Nazi symbol placed on his forehead. If he escapes from prison there is no doubt what he will do. He will start another “family” and send it too off on a killing spree. Manson has even said he will do this. If he were dead, killed by the Death Penalty, then that wouldn’t be a threat. As it is we have to keep him locked up for the rest of his natural life. He is a threat to his guards, other prisoners, and a continuing threat to society itself. We can’t kill him though because he didn’t go on the killing spree himself, he only inspired it. Meanwhile I have to spend my tax money to help support him for the rest of his natural life.

The Death Penalty has its advantages. It is something to hold over prisoners. If they murder another prisoner then they could have to face it. It also prevents us from supporting a prisoner for the rest of his life. That’s a cruel fact, but true. It will also prevent a murderer from ever killing again.

When the Death Penalty is applied it should be done so only as a last resort and under special circumstances.
-- First a higher standard of guilt should be met. The jury must be sure, beyond a SHADOW of doubt that the accused is actually guilty. A murderer can be convicted if beyond a REASONABLE doubt the jury considers him guilty. A higher standard should be held for the application of the death penalty. Just how stringent that standard should be is up to the Judge’s instructions, and the jury. Also our legal system is based on the idea that we would rather not convict 100 people, if that means convicting 1 innocent person.
-- Second the person should be considered a continuing threat to society. A man who finds out his wife is cheating on him and then kills her, may not be a continuing threat to society (unless he gets married again). He may be unstable and should be sentenced to a long prison term, but I don’t think he should be subject to the Death Penalty. The ultimate penalty should only be applied only to people who are likely to murder again; preferable only to people who have committed multiple murders and proved that they will kill again, if given the chance.
In some states there is another condition that can cause the Death Penalty to apply. In New York it is called Special Circumstances. If the crime was especially heinous and awful then New York considers it a crime worthy of the death penalty. The decision to try and apply this penalty is up to the District Attorney’s Office, but the jury should be the ultimate panel to decide if the Death Penalty should be applied or not.

I also think that a death penalty should raise an automatic appeal. This is done in most states, but the appeals process is limited. A case can only be turned over if there was an error committed in the trial. If some rule was broken, or if a procedure was violated. The person cannot be re-tried and new evidence cannot be introduced. I think that the judges should be given more liberal standards. They should be able to weigh new evidence or examine anything that sheds a new light on the case. The case should also be reinvestigated. This doesn’t mean that old evidence has to be recollected, but it should be gone over and checked to make sure it was collected and handled properly. This review should be done by a state official independent of the first investigation.

I don’t like the Death Penalty, and I think that it should only be applied in rare circumstances. However, there are some murderers that warrant this kind of punishment. These people need to have that penalty available to protect society.

Answer 3

Yup, death penalty should exist but only for those cases where a person is convicted for the death of another person intentionally either by his own actions or the actions of his/her associates. I also strongly oppose the policies of some countries like Singapore who execute people for drug trafficking as it is too harsh of a sentence to take someone's life for trafficking.

Answer 4

I say we should execute people when there are at least 2 witnesses to a crime. This way we are VERY sure of guilt and put the execution on fast track.
At the same time such a law would prevent executing innocents convicted on shaky circumstantial evidence.

Answer 5

Well if I had my wish all Pedophiles and Rapist should receive the dealth penalty how many freggin times do they let these people out and they do it again our country should not stand for it as for murderers it would depend on the circumstance Cold Blooded Killers should be executed there is no need for them in society and we shouldn't have to waste tax money on these people being around enough said they are the scum of the earth......

Answer 6

I have to say no! For even if there is only one person who is wrongfully executed... there is still one innocent life taken. Definately not fair. I think nobody has the right to kill another human being. (an eye for an eye and we all end up blind!)

Then again, I have never had someone close to me murdered or raped! That might change my mind!

Answer 7

No. I am a former prosecutor. I don't understand how anyone who has worked in the judicial system to any extent and knows how screwed up it is could ever favor something as irrevocable as the death penalty.

Answer 8

the Justice system seems to contradict their own reasoning . for instance in the fleeing felon act the say an officer should not fire upon a fleeing felon unless he is still considered a fatal danger .
however after he is caught and rendered harmless they reverse their thinking and put the harmlessly rendered individual to death. see the inconsistency !

Answer 9

To be honest if someone killed one of mine or, a child, a serial killer,etc,I would want them to die.
BUT,there are some innocent people on death row.The life of ONE innocent person is not worth killing the guilty.I would opt for life in prison without parole.That way it gives the innocent a slim chance of proving themselves not guilty.

Answer 10

Yeay, people who take the lives of innocent people should die. They'r not wanted on this earth