an example would be the death penalty. Like the controversy over lethal injection. The world has changed from so many death penalties because it isn't "fair" or "it violates civil liberties and rights". why should they have any rights if they are just taking the rights away from the people they murdered? Maybe I just don't know enough about the situation but if anyone has any info and would like to enlighten me please do because I am struggling to understand this concept. Thank you for your answers!!! :)
2006-12-30 16:17:01 · 3 answers · asked by Jnew16 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think that the death penalty question has nothing to do with political correctness. For more and more people, it is about the facts. Here are just a few of them.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Homicide rates are higher in states that have the death than in states which do not have it. Most people who commit murder do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)
The death penalty system costs much more than a system that does not have the death penalty. Much of these extra costs come way before the appeals begin. This money ought to be spent on crime prevention methods of proven value- including more and better trained police, and more sophisticated police methods and for victims services which are always underfunded.
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. In the majority of these cases, the evidence was not DNA, which is not often available. More often, the problem is one of mistaken eyewitnesses. After an execution, the case is closed. If the wrong person was executed the real killer is still out there.
The death penalty is racially biased, but not in the way you may think. A defendent is twice as likely to face the death penalty if the victim was white than if the victim was non white.
More and more states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says and is no picnic to be locked up for 23 of 24 hours a day, with no hope of anything else.
The death penalty can be very hard on the families of murder victims. As the process goes on they are forced to relive their ordeal in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is sure and swift and rarely appealed.
Deciding to use common sense, based on knowing the facts, to figure out how we deal with brutal crimes committed by depraved individuals does not mean we excuse either.
2007-01-01 16:53:48 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's because people think it's better to have murderers living than dead. It makes no sense. I think the main debate is whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment. However I don't see the point in keeping someone around in already over-crowded prisons because we can't bring ourselves to collectively decide some ****** that killed 26 people doesn't deserve a nice lethal dose of chemicals.
Just my two cents.
2006-12-31 00:21:38 · answer #2 · answered by Modus Operandi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its those d@$# hippies. personally, i think it should be death by (way that they murdered there victim).
2006-12-31 00:59:04 · answer #3 · answered by americarules51392 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋