If DNA proves that a person committed 1st degree murder or Rape shouldn't they be sentenced to death?

Question

like, there's no doubt that the person did it. Why shouldn't they be killed... it saves tax payers money to house them in prisons for the rest of their lives.. and they're getting what they deserve

Answer 1

The first and foremost reason is that killing a human being is wrong, no matter what crime they committed, even murder. It is not our place to decide when a person's life will end. As a result of my beliefs, I am pro-life with regard to abortion AND capital punishment.

The second reason is the fallibility of science. DNA technology is not perfect...it can also be tainted by human error. Also, the presence of someone's DNA can prove that they DID commit the crime, but the LACK of their DNA cannot prove their innocence.

Also, have you ever heard of a chimera? This is a person who has two different types of DNA in their body (in some women, it may only be the egg cells in their ovaries, later causing DNA tests to show, incorrectly, that their children are not biologically theirs.) This only serves as an indicator, to me, that nothing is ever as simple as it seems and that we don't know everything. You simply can't put someone to death based on imperfect science.

EDIT: Let me be clear; the chimera phenom has only been identified a handful of times, but that may only be because most of us are never in a position to need a DNA test in our lifetimes. You or I could be walking around as a chimera and never be the wiser!

Answer 2

In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court listed a number of factors for the jury to consider in determining whether to impose the death penalty or life imprisonment. There cannot be an automatic death penalty in the United States.
The Supreme Court also held that the death penalty for rape was disproportionate, meaning an excessive penalty, and also that the death penalty for rape was almost always imposed on a black rapist of a white woman or women.

Answer 3

Punishing someone for doing something wrong by doing exactly what you are punishing them for is not only hypocritical, but logically backwards. Given, it is a question of morality, and I would never say that the death sentence is entirely wrong, but it seems like much more of a punishment to take their life away, but make them live afterwards...e.g. a real life sentence. Or, we could always make a gladiator ring and have the killers kill each other...that would be good for the mindless mob that believes in an eye for an eye...and it makes money instead of "wasting" it. Perhaps I'm wrong...

Answer 4

The laws in our country are very clear....If you are convicted of a capital crime you will be sentenced to death....The death penalty saves taxpayers money get real....One person in prison cost their perspective state 13,000 a month..The average sentence for a person on Death Row is 8 to 10 years....In what sense does that save anyone any money.....And with all of this knowledge in states such as California they now house gang members(18-25) doing life with no possibility of parole in supermax prisons such as Pelican Bay...And me I am from the State of Texas where George W. Bush made prisons a financial priority...He built more prisons and proved that the business of housing prisoners is more profitable...Plus he became a mass murderer by executing 155 prisoners(many of which I believe were actually innocent)...Texas courts are known for convicting innocent people.....And even with all this information; life in prison is not a glory road of happiness and peace....The death penalty would probably be more humane......

Answer 5

States have different laws. But I feel that child molesters are the ones that truly should get the chair or whatever, it has been proven that there is no changing them they are the way they are forever. Either that or be in prison forever. Murderers should get the chair too I suppose - but there are too many people that are against it even though the electric chair, hanging, lethal injection or firing squad are often WAY more compassionate than the evil, wicked and cruel suffering way they took their victims' lives.

Answer 6

Actually, DNA testing NOW does not prove that a person committed a crime

it just narrows the field of suspects - alot

DNA evidence will either exclude a suspect, or make it highly unlikely that the DNA found was not theirs.

Answer 7

Some say that life in prison is worse than death. The death penalty, although I agree with it, does seem like the easy way out sometimes. But I don't agree with the "reform" them crap. I think if you're a serial killer or rapist there is no helping you. Just my opinion though.

Answer 8

I am not a big fan of giving the government the right to kill citizens. The government generally makes a lot of mistakes, and I think the balance of power between people and the government is thrown out of whack when the government has the power to extinguish the life of its citizens. I'd prefer that they were incarcerated.

Yes it costs money to incarcerate people but that does not make them disposable. Once you learn to devalue even one life, you can easily learn to devalue others.

Answer 9

Not rape...that's not an eye for any eye...that's more like a slippery slope. Unless the person is a serial Child rapist...then they should get a public lashing and the chair.
But serial killers just need to die.

Everyone else gets punished and a chance to reform.

Answer 10

Hmm ..... You really dont need to die unless you killed the Victim!
Its really unconstitutional unless you have done it often then comes life sentences which means basically your not getting out of prison which is worst in there HE is going to be the bell of the ball.......if you know what i mean.