What's a good point to make if you're against the death penalty?

Answer 1

Our law says it is illegal to kill someone.
Therefore, when the state kills someone, they are committing a crime. The state is no less responsible for its actions than its people are -- the state should not be allowed to break its own laws.

A multitude of studies has shown the the death penalty does nothing to reduce crime rates, is not a deterrent to any crime, and does NOT reduce the "cost" of housing an inmate in prison for the rest of his life (with all the legal battles, most death penalty criminals cost MUCH MORE to deal with than life-in-prison criminals). So what's left as to the reason to have the death penalty?

Revenge. Plain and simple, revenge. There is no other viable motive.
Do you want your government to kill people out of revenge? I don't. I don't like the example that sets, I don't like the fact it puts the state above its own laws, I don't like the extra cost. Lock 'em up so they never get out, but ALL killing is wrong. Period.

Answer 2

you raised more than an interesting question. you raised "many issues" to the same question. the number one issue I take is -- there is more than "a good point" -- there are many on both sides of the border. I say border because it is a borderline issue. Let me clarify. If you look at the issue from a religious point of view --death penalty is a no, no. from a political point of view -- it is "suicide" for the elected representative since you always have two sides to this particular issue. from a legal point of view -- the judgments reflect the society concern -- that they want to "safely guard society" against the same crimes to be committed by the same people. and the surest way -- is to eliminate that possibility. thus death penalty. there are other issues involved like the "cost, expense of keeping alive -- a murderer, at a social cost to society". Not only did he/she harm society but on top of that we have to pay for his/her survival. enough said, the issue is not resolved. that is real life.
last but not least --there is one single element that the judges have to take into consideration -- the fact that new evidence such as d.n.a. etc. might absolve the criminal -- later. Case closed. Hope you have your answer.

Answer 3

I heard a famous singer named Steve Earl talk about the death penalty one time and what he said made sense....the death penalty is enforced by our local government and elected officials. Killing a person is a sin....ok ....read the Constitution and the words WE The People are the words most people remember and he points out that" We the people "are the ones doing the killing......I am in favor of eliminating some of the vermin who show no remorse for the pain and suffering they have inflicted on innocent people.........but .............I don't know if killing them is the correct answer...The bible clearly states it to be a sin but I am not 100% believer in that also.... Check out Steve Earl's ramblings on his website...you may find something useful and it may explain what I tried to write a little better.

Answer 4

Well Travelled makes a great point - killing someone is against the law - whether from road rage or state sanctioned - it is still murder. The purpose of a punishment is to correct the crime OR repay the debt to society caused by the crime - the death penalty does neither - UNLESS, for example, the kidneys are harvested and implanted in someone who lost their own ( like a young soldier ), or the corneas are used to help someone see again, or the liver is used to replace one ravaged by cancer - all the recipients would be glad to live a normal life again, and the killer would have, by losing his life, now repaid his debt to society by making the lives of others worth living again.

Answer 5

Well I agree with many of the points above and will add; For someone who is actually guilty of a horrible crime the death sentence is too easy. Unlike the horror they inflicted they get to go to sleep peacefully and that's it.

Loosing your freedom for the rest of your life is worse punishment and if per chance the person was mistakenly convicted (happens) there is time to correct the mistake.

Answer 6

I have to disagree strongly with dingo. That is a terrible point to try to make.

A good point would be that innocent people are convicted--it's a statistical certainty--and innocent people have been executed for someone else's crimes. Even one innocent life taken makes the death penalty anathema.

Answer 7

The simplest one is that anyone - anyone - is capable, and can, change. How can we deny someone who is most in need of changing - the man or woman convicted of the worst crimes - the opportunity to do so? Who are we to make that decision?

As loathesome and vicious as some people are, even they can have such a change of heart. It doesn't happen very often, I imagine, but - I wouldn't want to be the one responsible for not allowing the few that do that chance.

Answer 8

I guess those who are against the death penalty can say that if, after some time, the defendant who was convicted turns to be actually innocent, then his fate can be overturned only if he wasn't executed. They also say prisons are supposed to educate criminals. But sometimes those who say it make it clear that they only want to extract endless revenge against the convict-not to educate him/her or anything.

Answer 9

WHY SHOULD YOU GIVE A GOOD POINT OTHER THEN YOU ARE AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY? I'M AGAINST IT AND I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ANY GOOD POINTS.IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU DO THEN SAY NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER PERSON LIFE, IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER.THEY HAVE KILLED TO MANY PEOPLE THAT WAS INNOCENT, BUT SINCE DNA THEY CAN PROVE MORE. I'M STILL AGAINST IT.

Answer 10

The best point:

Is our justice system 100% accurate?

Death is.