English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-28 03:04:42 · 11 answers · asked by user 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

11 answers

A couple of people are wrong about cost.

The death penalty costs much more than life without parole.
And much of the extra costs of the death penalty come before the
appeals have even started.

Over 120 people on death row have been released with evidence of their innocence. If the process were speeded up, as some of your answerers recommend, many of these wrongfully convicted people would have been killed in our name.

It is so important to know the facts about the death penalty, Applying common sense, rather than revenge, does not mean we excuse depraved and brutal crimes.

2006-12-28 03:49:24 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1 0

1. You can't reverse it. The US governmetnt acknowledges over 80 people were wrongly convicted and put to death in the last 150 years. For society to kill someone, the justice system would have to be perfect, and it isn't.

2. Cost. Because the Supreme Court has ruled many times on this issue, the means of death is very carefully controlled, as is the trial process that leads to the penalty. This means more expense in lawyers, longer trial times, two trials instead of one (a penalty phase separate from the first trial) an automatic appeal and so on. In addition, most inmates will file multiple appeals. The total cost to execute someone is more than the cost for keeping them in prison for life.

3. Most research shows the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. Most murders happen in the heat of emotion, or as part of another crime, like robbery. The criminals are not considering the consequences of these actions, so are not deterred by the death penalty.

2006-12-28 11:07:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I severely oppose death penalty. reasons:
1. Punishments are meant to make the culprit repent, but giving death penalty punishes the family of culprit, and not the wrongdoer.
2. If the accused was later found innocent, what shall the judiciary do to remedy that?
3. Some evils cannot be remedied just by taking away the life of the culprit... death in fact, relieves such a person.
4. It has been found that in countries where death sentence has been abolished, the crime rate has dropped, whereas where it is continued, the crime rate hasn't come down.

2006-12-28 11:19:07 · answer #3 · answered by khushi 2 · 1 0

I do not agree with the death penalty.

2006-12-28 11:06:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I believe if someone is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be taken from the court room and put to death--no appeal, none of that nonsense. And they should be killed in the same manner they killed their victim.

2006-12-28 11:24:40 · answer #5 · answered by preachingmissy 2 · 0 2

I think it is better than having tax payer dollars to go support life in prison for violent repeat offenders who cannot be rehabilitated.

2006-12-28 11:17:11 · answer #6 · answered by Leah 6 · 0 1

I am definitely against it.
We have killed too many innocent people for anyone to think this is a good thing.

2006-12-28 11:13:48 · answer #7 · answered by goddess1 2 · 1 0

It should be handed down in more cases and be carried out immediately after any allowed appeals are exhausted.

2006-12-28 11:27:15 · answer #8 · answered by Carp 5 · 0 1

I think we should bring back old sparky, or the gallows.

2006-12-28 11:14:14 · answer #9 · answered by CP 4 · 0 1

well the bible saids that if you kill someone then you should die

2006-12-28 11:16:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers