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

2007-01-04 14:20:55 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

18 answers

I think that it is wrong to kill someone and most of the time when they kill its an awful crime. I know that my Bible says "Thou shall not kill", but I think that if you do the crime then its only right that youre life be taken. then let God decide your fate.

2007-01-04 14:30:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I always wonder why people ask this question and so many answers do not include hard facts about the death penalty. The questioner should not be doing an informal yahoo answers poll but should instead be looking for information. Of all the answers. Malissa's is the best.

The topic is so important for statements of opinion without hard facts. Here are some; all can be checked out. A good source is the Death Penalty Information Center.

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. (My opinion: 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. (Opinion: It is no picnic to be locked up in a tiny cell 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.

Last of all. I believe that applying common sense based on the facts does not mean we excuse brutal acts or the depraved people who commit them. They should be severely punished.

2007-01-05 12:36:18 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0 1

To summarize several points:

1) Death penalty has proven to NOT work as a deterrent to crime.

2) The US is the only "civilized" nation left that executes people.

3) We have more and more death row prisoners being pulled out of jail every years because they were WRONGFULLY convicted.

4) I have never heard a victims family say AFTER an execution that the death of the person who killed their loved one made them feel better. What they usually say is that they THOUGHT they'd feel better afterwards - but have realized that nothing will bring their loved one back.

5) Even if we executed everyone on death row - our prisons would still be overpopulated and our tax dollars would still be going to support prisoners. Most people in jail are there for drugs or a drug related crime.

6) Spending a lifetime in a tiny cell alone is far more tormenting than death. Sometimes, death is a gift.

2007-01-05 01:28:16 · answer #3 · answered by Malissa 1 · 1 1

I think is should be based on a case by case examination.

There are some that do some horrific crimes that do not care, and never will. There is no chance of rehabilitation, and not a chance in hell they will ever be anything other than a sadistic murderer. Those are the ones that should die. Charles Manson? He should have been killed long ago. He has no chance in hell of doing anything other than carving swastikas in his forehead and babbling about how he is the God of this planet. Yeah, like he will ever see the light of day.

I do like to think there are some that kill and yet can make something of themselves - even if it is for the rest of their lives behind bars. They are the ones I truly believe should be spared. But I think they all should have to prove they are truly deserving of keeping their lives, even though they took a life of another human being.

2007-01-04 22:29:03 · answer #4 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 1 0

well...look at it from all sides...there are some cases where were should have it and some where were shouldn't. For example can a mass murderer really function in society? If no then what else can you do with him? Studying these people would be a good idea but then again what happens if they get out to kill again? Depending on what you believe will effect your answer..but me personally, I think in some cases it's what's best for the group as a whole. We could just do the whole thing were we turn them over to the victim's family to pass judgement.

2007-01-04 22:30:55 · answer #5 · answered by clarnely_2001 4 · 1 0

The death penalty is just, but only for those who have murdered someone else. An eye for an eye.

2007-01-04 22:49:02 · answer #6 · answered by Kaleoopono 2 · 2 0

I think that if a person takes another persons life he or she deserves to have their life taken from them. A person who spends their life in jail costs the government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should we have to pay for them because they took someones life?

Also, I think there should be a time limit on things like this. They killed Sadaam in a timely manner. He was convicted what, a month ago? And they killed him this past weekend. That seems like a good turn a round time to me. In the US now if a person is sentenced to die they wait years on death row, with appeal after appeal. I think they get something like six months and then they are killed.

When they kill someone they realize they run the risk of being killed in return. If they do it anyway then they should be punished.

2007-01-04 22:31:31 · answer #7 · answered by panthergoddess_92499 2 · 0 0

I was for it when I was young. Now I am not. Countries like England and France don't have it. Their histories were bloody. They've learned. They've become civilized. The states and middle east have the death penalty. The middle east is still in the dark ages which isn't saying much for the US.

2007-01-04 22:39:14 · answer #8 · answered by robert m 7 · 0 1

The United States is the only country in the modern world to execute their own people as punishment for crimes, and yet we have the most people in prison of any country, and also the greatest PERCENT of our population is in prison. Needless to say, the death penalty for murder is not effective, which is evident as how many criminals are still committing murder and how many still sit on death row for murder. We (the United States) say how backwards other countries are who use/overuse the death penalty, (China, Saudi Arabia, etc) yet we call ourselves civilized and we do it. What is wrong with this picture?

2007-01-04 23:09:59 · answer #9 · answered by SuzyBelle04 6 · 0 2

I also agree with CWDC.

The death penalty may not always be the solution to the problem.

However, under certain circumstances it should certainly be used to rectify and punish those who have committed heinous crimes towards innocent victims.

Hope this helps.

God Bless....

2007-01-04 22:30:56 · answer #10 · answered by ye 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers