what your opinion on the death penalty agree or diagree i diagree we shouldn't haveit because unconstitutional

Answer 1

So far the Supreme Court has not found the death penalty to be unconstitutional. However, there are so many problems with the death penalty, apart from what people think about it morally.

Costs: The death penalty costs more than life without parole. Much more. And much of the extra cost has nothing to do with appeals, but has much to do with fact that death penalty trials are much more complicated.

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 even available.

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.

It is good to come to a conclusion based on the facts and on common sense. Just because we do that rather than wanting to act for vengeance does not mean we excuse brutal acts and the depraved individuals who commit them.

Answer 2

Issues with the death penalty:

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.

However, successive Supreme Court decisions have found it constitutional, as long as the means of death is not cruel.

Answer 3

What is so unconstitutional about it? When the Constitution was written every state had the death penalty...hell you could get hung for stealing a horse...what about the Constitutional rights of the victims? I say cry me a river...if you can not handle the penalty don't do the crime...that is the reason I have not killed anyone yet...I don't want to go to jail and then be executed...=)~...lol

Answer 4

Where did you get the idea that the death penalty was unconstitutinal? The Bill of Rights recognizes jeopardy of "life or limb" and provides some safegurards. It is possible to say that the modern application of the death penalty is "cruel and unusual". Maybe we should go back to the methods used at the time of the Constitution's writing. Shooting or hanging were the methods prefered at the time.

Public hangings could be held in large arenas and tickets sold. This would be one way to help pay for our ever expanding prison systems.

Answer 5

I think that the death penalty is wrong for the reasons outlined below:

- It can lead to innocent people being killed due to the possibility of human error;

- Family members can be hurt by the process;

- It is probably hurtful to the souls of those who are involved in the killing process of the criminal.

I think it is unethical to just put people in jails for their crimes. I believe that we should send criminals to different types of correctional facilities that provide treatments for certain behaviors. For example, thieves should not be put in the same facility as rapists, molesters, or murderers. I think it is dangerous for society to put all types of criminals together in one facility. I also believe that once criminals have completed their time in prison... that they should have to work at least one day a week for the City unpaid until they have repaid their debt back to society. It is not right that we are paying to jail the criminals. Criminals should never be released from jail if there is any possible threat to society. I believe that if society does release people who may still be a threat to the public... those criminals released should never be left alone. This is to ensure the safety of the general public. Why are we not guaranteeing the safety of innocent civilians? Why are we allowing rapists, molesters, murderers other opportunities to hurt us? It just does not make any sense to me at all.

Some people may argue that it is a bad idea to give City jobs to criminals because it takes away jobs from good people. I am not suggesting that any paid City job can be replaced with people (once criminals) unpaid. There are lots of things criminals could do for society to repay their debt. For instance, they could work for non-profit Foundations like Environmental Groups to assist with helping clean up our environment (i.e. oceans)... or they could help rebuild Economies that have been destroyed by war.

Answer 6

I agree, with the death penalty, now you say it is unconstitutional, however it is not, the constitution says you are protected against cruel and unusual punishment. not all forms of the death penalty are, unusual punishment would be for say, stoning someone to death.

Answer 7

I agree with it, it will be one less murderer, child predator less in this world. The only thing unconstitutional is the appeal rights that inmates have that go on for years.

Answer 8

i agree with it. i also think the appeals process should be limited to save money. the evidence is usually overwhelming that a person has committed this crime, and if they are a violent, reoccuring offender with no hope for treatment and fully expected to recidivate, what else should we do with these people?? we put bad dogs down, what's the difference? the mode of death needs to be carefully thought out however, they shouldn't suffer

Answer 9

I agree with it in the case of violent murderers who have committed multiple crimes. Why should the taxpayers support them for the rest of their miserable lives?

Answer 10

I disagree with it but for different reasons
1. I'd rather see rapists and molesters rot
2. sometimes people are proven innocent years later