death penalty?

Question

i am doing a histroy project about death penalty. and the thing is i have to come up with some reasons that death penalty is ok ...can you guys help me find some reasons ..and proves why the death penalty is ok?

Answer 1

You may find some stuff about retribution- try looking at the hearings of the Death Penalty Study Commission (2006). The only explanation is that without a death penalty people might resort to lynching. You have a very tough job- but you may as well get the facts straight.


Some of the answerers of your question are misinformed. Here is some information to correct the mistakes.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. Homicide rates are higher in states that have the death penalty than in states that do not. Most killers do not think they will even be caught (if they think at all.)

The death penalty costs significantly more than life sentences. Much of the extra expense comes even before trial- it is much more complicated to choose a jury in a death penalty case, there are many pretrial motions that must be answered, the prosecution team will have more lawyers and if there is money for it, so will the defense team, death penalty trials are actually two trials- the guilt phase and the sentencing phase. Finally the costly appeals begin.

Over 120 people have been released from death rows with evidence of their innocence. Speeding up the judicial process would have meant the death of many of these people, in our name.


One of your answers says that people sentenced to death should be allowed no more than 2 appeals. He should look at the list of the innocent people who had more than 2 appeals, were on death row for at least a decade, and finally were exonerated.

More and more states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says and it is sure and swift, with very few appeals.

The death penalty can be very hard on families of murder victims. They are forced to relive their ordeal over and over again. Life without parole actually can give the victims families finality.

Good luck with your paper.

Answer 2

I think the death penalty should only be used if there is a significant amount of good evidence that the perosn really did the crime and if the crime was really bad. It doesn't matter if its a first offense or whatever if you have convincing evidence and you know for sure that the person who is being convicted for the crime did it then yes use the death penalty but if there is any lack of confidence in it then no it should not be used. We pay more for having someone killed then putting them away for the rest of their lives. In a way its a good thing because it does give family and friends closure sometimes but two wrongs also do not make a right and it surely won't bring the lost loved one back. So it is always going to be up to the government what happens in these kind of situations. So we either support it or don't. We are all free to our own opinions.

Answer 3

The death penalty guarantees one thing, and it's a big guarantee and quite solid. That the person or persons responsible for the worst crimes will never, ever do it again. That these particular prisoners will never again inflict pain, death or suffering upon another family. That's quite a tempting offer. Now that DNA testing can verify the guilt or innocence of the accused in most cases, we can be more certain that those given this sentence will in fact have earned it. But here's the rub. IF you are going to go to the trouble of having a death penalty, then carry it out. Forcing the convicted to sit on death row for years, or decades is cruel and unusual punishment, not only for him/ her but for the victim's family who wait for a justice that will not come.
You should be allowed 2 appeals and/ or one year (which ever comes first) to work to prove yourself either innocent, or worthy of a reduction in sentence to life without parole. If after that year has past and appeals have been lost, you have 30 days to wrap up your personal affairs, and make your peace and then you pay your debt and die. Furthermore, the death penalty should be lethal injection and that should be a national policy for all states. The convict still gets far more consideration here, than did his victims.
No one ever seems to care about the victim's and their families. On the night/ day that a convict is put to death, there is no one outside the victim's home with candles and signs of support. No throng of media covering their grief, which by the way, won't end just because the convict pays the ultimate price.

Answer 4

The only reason it would be ok is if you have irrefutable evidence that the person was guilty.

For instance, two people I think should have been put to the gallows are Martin Bryant and Julian Knight. Both are mass murderers in Australia and there is not a moment of doubt that these men are guilty, as there is video evidence and many, many witnesses.

I see no reason for these people to live at the tax payers expense.

However, if there was a shadow of a doubt, then I say no.

Oh, and FYI, there is no death penalty in any of the states or territories of Australia.

Answer 5

The death penalty is not about deterrence, or rehabilitation of other offenders. It is about retribution. If the people don't feel that there is a just retribution for horrific crimes, then basically all faith in the law and it's ability to protect society collapses.

Whatever people say on anti-death penalty sites, the people on death row are not innocent lambs whose guns went off by mistake. These are horrible people who deliberately tortured and murdered one or more persons. Simple or accidental murder of just one person doesn't get you on death row under any state's laws. They deserve to be taken out of society and the gene pool.

If you want to understand why we need a death penalty, read the details of the crimes that these death row inmates committed.

As far as stating categorically that it is not a deterrent, ask yourself how you can know that a person was deterred from a crime? How can you know which person decided NOT to shoot because they feared the death penalty? Statistics don't tell the whole story, because in our increasingly violent and conscienceless society, murder rates would very probably have risen sharply without some deterrent in place.

Answer 6

While I am personally against the death penalty (between all the appeals and the actual execution it costs the government more than it would take to house and feed the prisoner for the rest of his/her life), the death penalty helps to give the families of victims closure. It makes many of them feel better knowing that the prisoner had his/her life taken away for taking someone else's life. To many, it's "evening the score". Many people also feel that some people simply don't deserve to live, even if their life will be behind bars. While it's proven to not be a crime deterrant, the US continues to think that it is. Good luck with your project!

Answer 7

You'll never be able to prove the death penalty is ok. There will always be 50% against and 50% for. You picked a tough subject to report on my friend. Wish I could help. As they say in Poland....goodski luckskovich!!

Answer 8

Let's use the example of Saddam H. He shot and killed his own son-in-law for no good reason right in his own office. He gassed citizens of his own country. Oh yeah and about the reason his own people called him "THE BUTCHER", he devised a machine to grind up people by putting them into it feet first, and turning it on like a ground beef machine that you would find at your local supermarket. These people were alive and conscious all the time they were being ground up. Try to imagine this happening to you or one of your family.Oh and don't forget about the mass graves full of tortured Iraq citizens. Saddam is probably the perfect answer to why we need the death penalty.

Answer 9

Unless you have been through the pain and suffering of having a family member and close friend killed in cold blood, I don't think anybody should say whether or not they believe in the death penalty, because until it hits close to home, you have no idea!

Answer 10

It sets an example of people, and since most people value their own lives, it detours others from commiting the same crime that someone else got the death penalty for.