How can america still justify the death penalty?

Question

I've not got anything against america, it just puzzles me how they can claim to be civilized and still think executions are a good idea?

Answer 1

The death penalty is NOT civilized. America is not as civilized as you think. Most Americans are not very well educated. Our civilization has much magical-thinking and simple-thinking in it. But, many wiser people here with more long-term vision are not vengeful and can see that there are proven, better ways to run a society for the good of all. The death penalty in any society is also proof of a people's failed faith.

Answer 2

Old fashioned revenge. Never went out of fashion perhaps.

It's a balancing act, as some folks have committed such evil there can be no repayment ever, and they can never be allowed to threaten society again. Whether you can really justify a death penalty is another matter. The punishment is one attempt to have some scales of justice that can account for grievous crimes that are beyond redemption. It's not civilised really, but no-one can really answer certain questions completely.

In the UK we have a prisoner who wishes to kill himself. He's committed great evils that can never be forgiven or repaid. Instead of killing him, we force him to stay alive at all costs. I can't decide who's the least civilised.

The victim's family cannot have complete closure due to his continued existence. The only people satisfied (if that's the appropriate word at all), are those that believe being made to live in prison is some kind of worthwhile thing to make him do. I don't believe that, society pays for him to be alive in there and he is worthless to society now. We should allow him voluntary euthanasia at least-that way the victim's family can move on and so can the tax paying society supporting him.

If you can be absolutely certain of the guilt of someone who's committed unredeemable evil, then a death sentence perhaps is the only real answer. It will be debated for a very long time, it's a hard ethical question with no complete one true answer. So the death sentence is one solution that can be applied for now. It IS so final if they get the wrong man.

Answer 3

Being an American, I totally agree with the death penalty! I don't understand why it's a good idea to punish people by locking them up, for the rest of their lives, especially if they've committed horrible crimes. Why should we have to support them? Then there's the chance of a few of them making parole and turning around and re offending.
IMO, the death penalty should be used more often. It should also be applied swiftly. I am sick and tired of all the appeals prisoners are allowed to file and all the taxpayers money being spent to pay for the appeals.
There's no way anyone can justify, to me, why a person, who has committed a heinous crime should be allowed to live out their life at our expense.
No one forces these people to commit the crimes but, we're still expected to provide for the criminal.
I think, if a person is on death row, they are there for a reason and the sooner they are executed, the better.

Answer 4

Economists haven't reached a consensus, but one study I saw from a credible, unbiased source concluded that every execution in (Tennesee or North Carolina? I forget) prevented eight deaths. The only studies I've seen arguing against a deterrence effect were commissioned by groups like Campaign to End the Death Penalty.

Basically, Europeans tend to believe that you have an inalienable right to life. Americans, on the other hand, think your right can be alienated when you purposely choose to violate others'.

There's a reason the only two death penalty-eligible crimes are murder (multiple or especially heinous) and high treason: they are crimes that deny others of their right to live.

Sure, it's just as cheap to keep them in prison forever, but that denies the psychological effect of the death penalty on criminals and the philosophical statement of saying that we, as a people, do not tolerate the continued existence of those who wish to inflict terror upon us.

The death penalty also decreases the likelihood that the murderer will kill someone while he's in prison (either a corrections officer or a less serious criminal who could contribute more to society upon release).

I think most Americans agree that the death penalty should only be used when there's absolutely no doubt as to guilt, and when there's a strong chance that the murderer will kill again.

As for high treason executions (which are quite rare), that's essentially just the United States declaring war on a non-state entity.

Answer 5

How do people like Clifford Olsen, David Berkowitz, or any other murderers justify the death penalties they carry out on men, women and children? Why should taxpayers afford them 3 square meals a day, cable tv and conjugal visitations? It costs about $150,000 dollars per prisoner per year to house them, and only $1.19 for a 22 calibur bullet; it costs nothing to put them into the general prison population. State sanctioned execution of admitted or justly convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters is the best way to protect the general public.

Answer 6

America will justify death penalty only for Saddam Hussain

Answer 7

Various states treat the death penalty differently I beleive. The core problem with America however lies in the fact that although they are considered'civilized' they are very insular and ill informed via their media reporting. Very little is known outside the U.S. They really have a problem with their own importance. Nothing should justify the death penalty in a civilized society!

Answer 8

We don't know what to do to deter crime. The death penalty doesn't deter crime we know that but it all comes down to different opinions. States are allowed to make the decision to use the death penalty or not so it depends on who's in office at the time. It usually costs more $ for a death row prisoner than a life in prison prisoner. I think maybe people(victims, families of) think it will give them satisfaction to take life. I think it would give me satisfaction if some guy killed my child

Answer 9

What it comes down to is that whoever is in charge, does'nt believe killing is wrong. So your question is how we justify the death penalty, your answer is we don't have to, because it's the law. Probably has to do with Leviticus and the Christian foundation of the nation. To any any rational mind the death penalty is ridiculous, because killing is wrong or its not, pretty simple. So what we have to face is that there are people really high up that don't think killing is wrong, pretty scary don't you think?

Answer 10

there has to be repercussions for committing a crime and it is hoped that the threat of punishment is a deterrent to breaking the law. i think that cases need to be looked at more closely and also those that are convicted on circumstantial evidence and not actual evidence should not be eligible for the death penalty. those that are sitting on death row and those that are being executed especially in Texas are increasing at an alarming rate even when evidence points to discrepancies. if you are the one that has that final power as to whether it is carried out and you choose to ignore things that could possibly prove a man's innocence and save his life than you are guilty of murder and will have to answer for it maybe not in a court of law but to god.