Death Penalty?

Question

What are the reasons to go against the death penalty?

I am doing a debate on this tomorow and I could use some extra input.

Answer 1

A couple of the answers given here are wrong. The first misstatement I spotted is the one saying there are no reasons to abolish the death penalty.

How about:
Over 120 people released from death rows on evidence of their innocence. In most of these cases, the evidence was not from DNA. In many of these, the actual killer was eventually found. If the wrongfully convicted person had been executed, the case would be closed, and the real killer would still be free.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. No reputable study has shown otherwise. States that have the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not.

A system with the death penalty is far more costly than one that does not have it. In just one state, New York, over the last 11 years, 7 men were sentenced to death. None had had more than one appeal, most had not even gotten to that stage. The cost was over $200,000,000, which had little to do with the process after sentencing, other than the higher costs of keeping someone on death row. Average annual cost to incarcerate someone (including those who have taken a plea) is about $35,000 per year, and trial costs much less if the death penalty is not on the table. Do the math. What accounts for the difference?In a non death penalty case, there is no extended pre trial investigation for the prosecutor to determine whether to seek the death penalty, and death penalty trials are actually two trials- the first guilt or innocence, the second the penalty phase. Death penalty cases require witnesses with expertise not needed in non death penalty cases.

The death penalty is racially biased. It is the race of the victim that matters, not so much as the race of the defendant. According to a report to the Senate judiciary committee, “Among all death-eligible offenders, those data indicate that the death-sentencing rate from 1995 to 2000 is twice as high in white victim cases as it is in minority victim cases.” This continues to be the case.

In trying to avoid mistakes, and because due process of law is built into the Constitution, (5th and 14 amendments) appeals take time. Victims family members are subject to unnecessary pain each time their ordeal is revisited, in courts and in the media. A sentence of life without parole is swift and sure.

Life without parole, which means what it says, is a life without hope of ever getting out. This is no picnic. Being locked up in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day is arguably worse than being executed.

These arguments have nothing to do with being soft on crime or condoning depraved acts.

Answer 2

The death penalty is used as a dertent still in only a few countries around the world. What these countries and all those who ge head long into the fray and say that it is a good thing is that the rest of the world has learnt that you don't need to kill to make a good derenent, and if you do then there is something wrong with your country. A famous case in australia where two inocent men would have lost thier lives is the michelburg (I hope that is it) trial where the two men spent thirteen years in jail because the cops who had investigated it just wanted to blame someone, onyone it didn't matter who. If there had been the death pennalty then these two would have died along time before thier appeal that set them free. Any way jefferson I think it was said it is better that ten guilty men be set free than one innocent man be sent to jail. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Although I am for the death penalty, the best reason I can think of to go against it would be that it seems to be an easy way out for the offender. I realize it take about 20 years of appeals before a death sentence is carried out, but it almost seems like they would get more punishment it they had to spend the rest of their life (could be a very long time if they are young offenders) locked up in a very small room.

Answer 4

Death Penalty is an issue for all countries who are still operating very old laws, as old as 6000 years! These fundamentalist countries are like Afghanistan, Iraq and USA.

However, there are many 'Advance' countries in the World who have condemned Death Penalty in LAST century!?
As the Death Penalty is against HUMAN RIGHTS; God has given US only once the chance to 'LIVE' and no government is allowed to take that from its citizens.

The European Country and Turkey as a Muslim country are the ADVANCE society that the Death penalty as been removed from their Criminal Law.

Death Penalty is the biggest Shame for American Justice System and shows the Americans' face as savage and barber to the people of the World, in particular, where ONLY poor people would get that the most harsh penalty in USA, not lawyers, judges, ministers, or even President G W. BUSH for 911!

While in England, which is the father of USA Law, under British Law, the KING of England was convicted to Death Penalty!
However all people of World saw that O.J. did not get death penalty as he spend millions dollars in hiring the best lawyers!?!

We all know this is not the justice and equality under the law, therefore, as far as, poor people can not pay millions dollars to BUY the death penalty conviction, it is just to be removed, permanently from USA Law.

Answer 5

Our system is far too flawed, I'm from Illinois and we just got through pardoning most of death row because so very many were there even though they were innocent. For me, if you agree to have a death penalty then you must admit that it is okay to occasionally execute an innocent person, because the system is not and can never be perfect; but it is NOT okay to execute any innocent persons, therefore it is NOT okay to have a death penalty.
EDIT Wow it takes about 30 seconds to say what I said, and get someone to say out loud that they are basically good with the occasional execution of an innocent because we have to live in the real world. Oops. Hope you're never wrongfully convicted.

Answer 6

You should go to a prison and ask to see someone on Death Row so you can ask them if they believe the death penalty should be abolished. While you are doing that, you should ask them to explain as to how they got there.

Actually, there are no reasons to abolish the death penalty. There are a lot of reasons that it should be enforced more than it is. I think that executions should be made public and students should have to witness them. There would be a lot less murders if you knew what would happen to you for committing murder. many will say it is cruel and unusual punishment. The Holy Bible states that GOD said that, "Whosoever shall shed man's blood, by man, shall his blood be shed."

After reading a lot of the answers to this question, I have to elaborate more on the subject. So, let's go to the U.S. Constitution, 7th. Amendment.
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the united States, than according to the rules of the common law." That means that when anyone is found guilty of murder by a jury and convicted to death by execution, that conviction cannot be appealed by any court in the land. Only the Goverrnor of the State can order a Stay of Execution and can only order it if the prepondance of evidence is great enough to suggest it.

So, you see that the main reasons for all the appeals is only to line the attorneys pockets at the taxpayers expense.

The reason I site the U.S. Constitution is that it is the supreme law of the land.

Answer 7

Other besides the probability that an innocent man will die, in which that law of probability is declining thanks to modern forensic science. I personally can find no reason to go against the death penalty, in my frank opinion it is the most underutilized form of punishment we have in our justice system. For instance in california the man convicted of a henious crime in 1981 (raping and murdering a 17 year old girl) has had his sentencing indefinetly postponed because of the methods used to carry out leathal injections (claiming that it was "cruel punishment"). Well what about being raped then murdered, where is the suttleness in that form of torture. We as a society have become to soft on criminals, using the right to life as a crutch for reasoning. While it is a right we uphold dearly as Americans we must draw a line and say enough is enough. Now i'm not saying build gallows and hang somebody who is a petty thief or someone who smoked some weed and got caught, these are rehabilative crimes. Everyone has the right to life, but when a person choses to take anothers right to live, he/she should have their right to life revoked.

Answer 8

It is more costly at present than incarceration for life since it inevitably incurs a lengthy appeals process.

It divides the electorate and garners sympathy for those who do not deserve sympathy.

It makes it difficult to extradite suspects who flee to foreign countries; some countries e.g. Canada and Germany, have laws against extradition to countries where the accused could face the death penalty.

There is always a danger of executing an innocent man.

Answer 9

first of all i am for the death penalty. however a good reason to go against it is that in most cases I've heard it cost more because of red tape than a life sentence. see if you can find any facts on the % of people on death row who have been exonerated.

Answer 10

The right to Life. Prisoners have a right to remain alive and fufil the sentance for which they were dealt. It is unjust to kill another person regardless of what they may have done. The eye for an eye philosophy is childish and moronic. Killing them is only furthering the problem and showing others that murder in the name of "revenge" or "punishment" is ok, and may lead to more deaths.

For the record, i do support the death penalty, when you take the life of another human being, you are voiding your own right to life. Plus it cuts down on prison overpopulations.