Death Penalty...yes or no?

Question

dont forget,,there ARE innocent people in prison. DNA tests ahve released ALOT of criminals.

Answer 1

NO~

Answer 2

Death penalty - yes. Even though it will occasionally kill an innocent person, yes.

The death penalty, even when it is rushed, will kill the guilty much more often than the innocent falsely accused. But most of the people who are killed by murderers are innocent victims.

Keeping the guilty alive at cost to the taxpayer is unjust to the taxpayer.

The death penalty does deter. However, the differences in the murder rate among the US states are not primarily the result of whether the death penalty is used in that state or not. The biggest reason for the different murder rates is the racial demographics in the state. Some races are much more violent, specifically more murder-prone, than other races. The states with high percentages of violent races have the highest murder rates, and those murder rates would be EVEN HIGHER if the death penalty weren't deterring at least some of the crimes.

Have a look at these graphs. The data comes from federal law enforcement records kept by the Justice Department in the United States.

http://jabpage.org/images/correlate.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/correlate2.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/uscitymu.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/citymtri.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/statmtri.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/mublcity.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/makills.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/vakills.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/gakills.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/alkills.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/usblakil.jpg

Now, have a look at the tables on the following web pages. The source of the webmaster's data, again, is the official crime data records kept by the U.S. government.

http://www.jabpage.org/features/racestat/racestat2.html
http://www.jabpage.org/features/racestat/racestat3.html

See who's "doin' it"? Do you get it yet? The death penalty deters, but it doesn't deter enough to offset the violence of the darker races. And the deterrent effect of the death penalty is watered down by the uncertainty about whether or not it will, in fact, be used. When death is not a sure result of murder, murderers will gamble.

The only thing I would require in the application of the death penalty is local discretion in its application. I don't want "higher" courts, in far-away jurisdictions, to have any power to meddle in what the lower court decided. If a particular local jurisdiction is corrupt, it will tend to "lose business" as people gradually migrate to places where the laws suit them better. Monopoly has the same effect in government as it does in business: worsens the service, raises the cost, and makes the top executives contemptuous of the customers. So let the law not become an instrument of a central government "monopoly." Let the big life-and-death decisions remain local.

Find them guilty at dusk. Hang them at dawn. Bury them before the sun sets again.

If a mistake is made, look after the family.

If a false accusation is knowingly made, treat it as an attempted murder.

If a wrongful execution was done because of a false accusation that was knowingly made, treat it as an aggravated form of murder that deserves a very special execution... one that includes torture for the person who knowingly made the false accusation.

If a true accusation is falsely declared to be a false accusation, treat the false declarer as if he were a murderer. Where does it end? It ends when you have the truth.

Answer 3

Yes.

DNA has come a long way, and I think that if someone is proven guilty and there is no way they could be innocent, they should die if they've done some horrible crime. Look at it this way- if you or someone you knew was the victim, if your best friend or sibling was raped and murdered, you'd want the person responsible to pay. Just going and hanging out in prison, where inmates are cared for better than homeless people suffering on the street are cared for, is NOT punishment. Yeah, no one's happy to be in prison, but seriously, prisons are becoming more like holiday clubs than jails.

So... yes, death penalty, if there's no doubt about guilt! The families of the victims need that closure, and society needs to be rid of evil people like that.

Answer 4

You asked a very big and open ended question. Here are some of the facts (unfortunately some of the people who answered did not get them right.)

Costs: The death penalty costs more than life without parole. Much more. And much of the extra costs occur way before appeals begin. How about spending this on victims services, where the funds are needed and can really help people.

DNA: Of the more than 120 people released from death rows, DNA evidence applied in very few of the cases. Most of the time DNA is not available. It is not a question of waiting for it to “catch up.”

If the process of execution were speeded up many of these people would have been killed, in our name.

Other alternatives: Life without parole is on the books in more and more states. It means what it says. Spending 23 of 24 hours locked in a tiny cell is no picnic. It may be harsher than the death penalty, but, as human beings, we make mistakes and an execution is irreversible.

Many families of murder victims oppose the death penalty knowing that as the cases go on and on, they have to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift. There are rarely any appeals.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. States that have the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not.

Race: The point here is that the race of the victims makes the difference. Prosecutors are twice as likely to seek the death penalty if the victim was white than if the victim was non white. (Baldus study, testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal Death Penalty Study-Justice Dept- see http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/pubdoc/dpsurvey.html
or for a summary, see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=29&did=196
at the Death Penalty Information Center.)

I think that rather than focusing on revenge, people need to know the facts about the death penalty. Revenge should not determine how we deal with brutal crimes and depraved individuals. We cannot excuse them, but we need to use common sense.

Answer 5

Black or White, Tea or Coffee, Heads or Tails. Up or Down. This is not an issue where you can put a simple Yes or No with. The conditions of the issue need to be addressed before the conclusion is made. Places like California which are teeming with over run prisons populations equivalent to a mid sized city are when you say No. But on the other hand, places like Texas also face the same issues when they answer Yes - a very large GENERALIZATION.

Answer 6

There are indeed innocent people, but I think the death penalty shouldn't exist at all, not even for the guilty ones. First of all, not even guilty ones deserve this punishment no matter how much they have sinned and no matter how terrible they are. Second of all, I've always believed that spending the rest of their life in prison, with the knowledge that they are going to die there and that they can have no hope for freedom is a harsher punishment than a quick death. And who says that death is a punishment anyway? Who says that after they die they are going to be sent to a place where they can get what they deserve?

And by killing prisoners, regardless of the fact that they may deserve it, we set a bad example and we are as bad as them. It's like trying to educate a child by telling him to stop screaming while you're actually screaming the order yourself.

Answer 7

I live in Maryland. Back in the 1980s a man named Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl and was sentenced to death. After years of appeals and such, his sentence was commuted to life, and, instead of being put to death, he was alive when the evidence that proved his innocence was discovered.
But if those who support the death penalty had been given their way, he'd have been dead by then.
Oops.

To those who would say that a few mistakes are "acceptable," I ask if they would still feel that way if the unjustly convicted person were themselves or someone they loved? Would you sacrifice yourself or an innocent loved one in support of the death penalty? After all, "you have to break a few eggs...."

To those who claim that mistakes are rare, I note that a review of cases in Illinois a few years ago indicated that a large percentage of the inmates on death row were in fact not guilty of the murders for which they had been sentenced to die. The evidence was so overwhelming that the state's governor, who not only supported the death penalty but had written the Illinois death penalty law, ordered an immediate halt to all executions in the state.

I could go on. I know of dozens of cases where people barely escaped execution only because someone (not the state) took the trouble to review their cases. How many others got no such second look?
While it hasn't been definitively proven, it seems very likely that Florida executed an innocent man in 1988.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=a0og...

There a plenty of other questionable cases, many very recent.
We have no way of knowing how many innocent people have been put to death in the name of the law, but don't doubt for a minute that it has happened and will happen again if we keep up the current practice.

Answer 8

DEATH!!

However, there should be a very long process to make sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the person deserves such an end. I say, there should be Attorneys, whose sole purpose should be to release people of their penalties and reduce sentences. It should be considered an honor to produce such a service, and that job should reap such rewards as a $250,000 salary. Would you do such a job? I wouldn't require many people in this possition, but it will do this...

Save money on feeding criminals who obiously commited a murder in the first degree.

Save lives of those who were falsely accused, and could not afford a fair trial.

Decrease the amount of inmates and release sensible tax paying citizens, who could benefit society with their experience.

etc.

Answer 9

Death Penalty?? An absolute YES!! I know that there are a few innocents in the prison system, and that is a part of our not-so-perfect system of justice, whowever if all criminals KNEW that they would get the death penalty for the crime I can guarantee you that the serious crimes would dramatically decrease in a very short time!! Do you honestly think that if someone knew they would die for their crimes that they would still commit the crime? I know that if I was gonna be killed for some of the crimes I committed as a younger adult I NEVER would have committed those crimes!!! Sever penalty?? Yes it is, and that is what is needed in todays society of criminals!!

Answer 10

If they could prove without a doubt and all the tests were solid. then yes. I do not agree with a person getting to live one more day after they took someone elses life. Why should the criminal be able to smell the air again and see family and have fun. When the victim is laying cold in the ground while their family has to heal. I also think the jail system is a joke. Its funny that homeless people arent killing a bunch of people just so they could have it all in jail. There are jails where your family can move in with you, they can come visit, you get tattoos now, you get to smoke, you get to go outside, you get tvs and radios, you get day passes and all that crap. where the hell is the damn punishment? the justice for innocent ones?

Answer 11

Death penalty what a joke! Most convicts on death row die of old age. When a convict is sentenced to death they have at least 10 years of appeals through our court system. I believe in the death penalty but only so far as they execute people within a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, it just isn't a deterrent.