Why do u think we should stop having death penalties?

Question

If u disagree with having death sentences or penalties internationally, why? and what solution do u have 2 stop d cases or an alternative 4 death?

Answer 1

Common reasons against capital punishment

The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament): Some Christians feel that they are no longer bound by the legal codes of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the death penalty is no longer required. Since the Bible was written, as society became more tolerant, we eliminated the death penalty for pre-marital sex, practicing a different religion, engaging in prostitution, homosexual behavior, blasphemy, rebellion by teenagers, etc. We should eliminate it for murder as well.
The Christian Scriptures (New Testament): Abolitionists often quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position. (That passage, John 8:7, was probably not written by the author(s) of John). She had been sentenced to death by stoning, but Jesus used a cleaver ploy to gain her freedom. On many occasions, Jesus taught about forgiving people who have wronged you. However, may theologians believe that this story is not a
The beliefs of the early Christian church: Some theologians believe that the early church was closer to Jesus' teachings than are the present-day churches. They were unalterably opposed to the death penalty.
Playing God: Executing a person kills him before the time of their natural death. Some Christians believe that God places people on Earth for a purpose. If we kill them prematurely, then we may be thwarting God's will.
Effect on society: Some feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if done by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. It "violates our belief in the human capacity for change....[It] powerfully reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to healthier and safer communities." 7
Lack of Deterrence: The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate. 1 to 6
Cost: The costs to the state of funding appeals by convicted murderers would more than pay for their permanent incarceration.
Value of human life: Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Live is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state.
Unfairness: The mentally ill, poor, males, and racial minorities are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage. Women convicted of murder are almost never executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men. A 1986 study in Georgia showed that persons who killed "whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites." 8,9,10 The Texas Civil Rights Project issued a report in 2000-SEP which was critical of the justice system in Texas. They made the following criticisms which could probably apply to most of the states in the U.S. which still execute prisoners: The defense lawyers are often incompetent. Judges sometimes appoint friends or political associates. Other times, no competent lawyer is willing to accept the case because of the poor compensation paid.
District attorney are given "unrestricted discretion" in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. Poor people, and members of minority groups are more likely to be targeted because of prejudice and bigotry.
Jurors who may support the death penalty, but have reservation about its use, are eliminated from jury duty.
Jurors are often not given the option of a life-without-parole sentence in murder cases.
The appeal process has "burdensome, if not impossible, procedures." The process seems designed to speed cases along rather than grant justice.
The rules appear to be in flux: the highest appeals court in the state reversed about one out of every three capital sentences prior to 1995. Since 1995, this has reduced to less than 3%.
The operation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles in Texas is severely flawed. They do not meet as a group to study evidence and discuss a case. Individual members are sent stacks of documents, and make their decisions via telephone or fax. 11

Chance of Error: Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."
Horror: Some consider capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sending a person to Hell: Some Christians believe that an individual who dies without being "saved" will go to Hell for eternal punishment. By killing the person before the time when they would have naturally died, we are eliminating any chance that they might have for salvation.
The family of the prisoner is victimized and punished by having their loved one murdered by the state. Yet the family is usually innocent of any crime.
Lack of jury convictions: Some jury members are reluctant to convict in murder trials because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Thus, many killers go free and are never punished.
Uselessness: Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person.

Answer 2

1. The death penalty may stop the person killed from re-offending, but it has not worked as a deterrent to others. Criminals always think they will not be caught. 2. Too many errors have been made over the years and once someone is killed, it is too late if he is cleared later.
3. The argument that we are paying too much to keep these people in jail is bogus. Look up the cost to the government of a death penalty case with the automatic appeals. The cost to keep the offender in jail for life is much less.
4. I also think only God has the right to take a life, but I realize this argument is not valid to all citizens as many don't feel that way.

Most people who are for the death penalty use the arguments of it being a deterrent and the cost to keep the offender in jail. These are not valid arguments. If though someone feels that there are some people who are just too evil to live, because of their crimes, this IS a valid argument. It is not one I agree with, but it is at least valid.

The alternative to death is life without the possibility of parole. I think many of us would feel comfortable with that if we can be assured that the criminal will never be out of jail.

Answer 3

In my opinion in someways I do agree with the death penalty if someone you love was murdered by a cold-blooded killer then I think justice should be serve and they should fry that person. If they are innocent and without evidence to prove they commited the crime I say that person should be given a free trial without the death penalty unless there is some evidence to prove otherwise. Obama can have the power to end the death penalty but only if there are enough voted against it by Congress. If he gets short of votes they will have to veto it and try again some other time.

Answer 4

The Death Penalty is the ultimate payment for the ultimate crimes.

Why is this a bad thing?

1.Witnesses lie, including those sworn to uphold the law. Cops are not above corruption and may have secondary agendas (like they can not get charges to stick to a drug dealer, so they lie about a murder the dealer didn’t commit).

2.Evidence can lie. How many cases have been cleared by DNA 20 years later? Evidence becomes more reliable with technology, but it can still be contaminated, mislabeled, falsified, read into, or misinterpreted. Once a person is killed, it is pretty tough to revive them if evidence clears them later

3.It is not a deterrent. There is no “cause and effect” as in America, an execution takes decades usually. When you were little, you hit your little brother, you got spanked (cause and effect). When you kill someone and 20 years later they take your life, there really isn’t much association with the crime and punishment

4.It doesn’t help the families of the victims. If a family hasn’t come to terms with their loss while the offender is living, they are not going to feel any better the morning after they are killed. It is natural to want vengeance and there is nothing wrong with it, but vengeance will not make the pain of a child killed by a sexual predator go away.

5.In the US, it is expensive. 20 years of legal wrangling (appeals and more appeals) costs money for both parties. In the end, it is pretty much cheaper just to incarcerate them for life.

6.In some foreign countries, there isn’t any appeals process. If they say you did the crime, you did it, whether you did or not. This ups the chances of killing an innocent person drastically. However, this eliminates the issue with #3.

7.I would argue that death is better than living the rest of your life in a metal cage. If you want to punish a person, let them rot in their cell with nothing but their thoughts for 50 years. Let them watch their loved ones die without being able to say goodbye. Let their family abandon them one at a time until no one cares about their existence. Let their kids refuse to acknowledge them for the rest of their lives. Let them miss weddings, graduations, and grandchildren.

8.I could argue that it can be inhumane. Personally, I can’t imagine being electrocuted being a nice way to go. Choking to death on cyanide can’t be a pretty way to go either as you die of asphyxiation. Firing squad leaves too much room for human error. Lethal Injection sounds like it may not be too bad I guess.

That is what I can think of off the top of my head. All this being said, I don’t think the death penalty is a bad idea, I just think it is pointless in its current form in the US.

Alternatives? Put the prisoners to work for the rest of their life at hard labor. The farm prison in the US (Angola is it?) sounds like a great idea. Put them to work clearing timber in Alaska (if they run, they get shot or die of exposure or starvation). Make the prisoners repair state comupter equipment. Start a shop that restores classic cars and sell them for profit.

If the prisoner has a chance of getting out, they need to learn a skill to keep them from coming back. If they don't have a chance of getting out, giving them a meaningful existance or a way to pass the time will keep them quiet I guess.

Answer 5

Disagree.

1. innocent people are sometimes put to death.
2. don't believe anyone other than God has the right to take a life.
3. statistics do not suppport the theory that the death penalty is a deterrent to criminal behavior.

Inmates should be required to learn a trade or skill or be educated in some way to reimburse the public for their upkeep.

Answer 6

I believe in the death penalty only becuase of the type of crime. If they murdered then they should be murdered. But for rape, robbery, selling drugs, etc, life without prorale is murder enough.

Answer 7

because death is irreversible
if at a later date it is found that there was some lacuna in the investigation and the person punished is not guilty after all the mistake cannot be corrected

Answer 8

why death? because some people have problems that can't be helped and they have done terrible things, and if they could would do even more things to other people. well i don't think that they would be a very good member of society, what do you want to do with them?