2006-12-27 15:34:12 · 23 answers · asked by composure 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
All things depend on something.
2006-12-27 15:34:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the answers are very good, and there is a lot of useful information you can use to make up your mind. But there are a couple of things to clear up first:
Life without parole means what it says and is on the books in more and more states. It is much cheaper than the death penalty.
The death penalty can be very hard on murder victims’ families. They are forced to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media, while the legal process goes on and on. A sentence of life without parole is quick and sure. A death sentence is neither. Many victims family members oppose the death penalty because they know that it will prolong their anguish.
Over 120 people on death row have been found to be innocent. In the overwhelming number of these cases the evidence of their innocence was not DNA. DNA is actually available in very few cases. Mistaken eyewitness testimony is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions. It is human nature to make mistakes.
2006-12-28 10:42:57 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all it depends on the crime. I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye. I only think the death penalty should be used, where there is death, like homicide, genocide etc. Having said that I would have to agree with the other poster who said it should be televised. It should. I know I would think twice about committing a murder, if I knew for a fact what my penalty for doing so would be. The death penalty is supposed to deter crime, but unless people see what it actually is about it doesn't deter anything.
2006-12-27 23:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by mlw6366 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that there are certain cases where the death penalty should be used. Convicted serial killers should be put to death. Why should the people of any country have to pay for the upkeep for people like that? There are also some other crimes which I believe the death penalty should be the consequence, serial child molesters for one. Again, why should the people of any country have to pay to feed, clothe, house people like that? Until someone really puts them all on a deserted island to fend for themselves, they should be executed if they have done it over and over and over, especially with no remorse.
2006-12-27 23:44:34 · answer #4 · answered by yowhatdoyouwant 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I believe that the death penalty should be used in cases of serious crime such as murder. I also believe that it needs to be done in a public forum so that the people see justice being caried out. The appeals process is too lengthy at present. 20 years on death row is too much. After a trial their shoudl be a appeal to the appelat court, then one to the state superior court and then one final appeal to the US Supreme Court. That allows for 3 appeals before the sentence is carried out, the first one being automatic. At any time, DNA evidence needs to be used whenever possible to help clear the innocent. After going through this process, if the person is still found guilty, then the sentence should be carried out quickly in a public forum with no appeals for how it is to be carried out possible. The total time shoudl be no more than 5 years from the time of the first trial until the time the sentence is carried out. That provides for sufficient time to conduct a fair trial without waiting until memories fade and evidence disapears. Swift and fair justice is what this country was founded on and should be what this country sticks with.
2006-12-27 23:54:03 · answer #5 · answered by daddyspanksalot 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No!
It serves no purpose beyond revenge. It has been shown to be ineffective in deterring crime; criminals tend not to think of the future anyway. It doesn't make anybody any safer; escaped death row inmates are exceedingly rare. As far as giving some people that satisfying feeling of "they got what they deserved" , I am not sure that is a valid justification for public policy, let alone taking someones life. Remember, this is not about what kind of people THEY are, it is about what kind of people WE are.
I also find it rather ironic (hypocritical) that many of the religious right who fight to prevent abortion on the grounds that life is sacred, forget their own argument when it comes to the death penalty.
2006-12-27 23:48:39 · answer #6 · answered by Hari Selden 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I`m from Portugal and we were one of the first countries to abolish the Death Penalty. To me, it makes no sense because it is not our decision whether someone should die or not. Besides, you sentence killers to die to show you shouldn`t kill? This makes no sense at all!!!
So, I am completely against it!!! And, I`m amazed that the US hasn`t abolished it yet since it is one of the most developed countries in the World... And if it does work, how come your crime rates are so high?
2006-12-28 08:10:52 · answer #7 · answered by Carla 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No and these are my reasons:
-Of course those convicted who truly committed murder deserve it, but we as humans should not have the right to take life unless it is to save other lives. Two wrongs don't equal a right.
-The death penalty has not been shown to reduce crime.
-It costs an astronomical amount to execute someone due to appeals. Housing them for life is much cheaper.
-False convictions are a reality and are not as rare as you think. Please look at www.wm3.org. The justice system does have flaws.
I am much more of a fan of creating a miserable existance for them and putting them in prison for life with zero chance of being released.
2006-12-27 23:45:16 · answer #8 · answered by prettyinpunkk 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Only in rare instances. Examples of these include:
1. Multiple, preplanned murders.
2. DNA evidence, not mere eyewitness or bullying police interviews.
3. An unrepetent defendant.
2006-12-28 00:19:34 · answer #9 · answered by Shelley 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Maybe. I feel both ways. I mean, if you kill someone, shouldn't you be killed? But, if you are using the death penalty, they are basically doing the same thing the criminal did: killing somebody.
2006-12-27 23:42:26 · answer #10 · answered by cam - [ily]♥ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes i do! No spastic,deformed genes would continue getting passed on!Why do you think that God commanded in the bible that offenders be stoned to death?
There is an a true & right answer to every problem in the bible,but people choose to distort,take out of context, or read the whole thing & understand it!
When you murder or rape or torture another human being,you are at the mercy of God ,ALONE!You have lost your rights as a member of any community.
This is why prisoners & criminals get so well treated.Some lilly livered ,bleeding heart liberals decided against God,that they had rights!
Mabey right to a trial,but after they are found guilty,then no rights except to fall on God's mercy & ask forgiveness.
2006-12-27 23:43:52 · answer #11 · answered by Frogmama 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋