Surely If Killing's Wrong then Punishing It By Death Is Hypocrisy there are so many flaws in the death penalty

Question

A quote comes to mind that may help you answering this question
"Many you live deserve life and many who die deserve life, do not be too quick to deal out death in judgement"
People could be executed when innocent for example.

And a few quick seconds of pain is hardly a punishment for the offender, as the death of a loved one will be a lifelong scar for all there next of kin

Answer 1

The answerer Catawhump, I think, who wrote that people released from death row with evidence of their innocence were probably accessories, is completely wrong. The writer should read the stories of Ray Krone and Kirk Bloodsworth, both of whom were proved to be innocent by DNA. These men are good people, ordinary, hard working. You can google these men’s stories. You should also look at the list of other exonerees (over 120), available at the Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, and you will find that in most of these cases, the defendent was not involved in the crime or any other for that matter. Unfortunately DNA is rarely available in homicide cases.

The death penalty system makes mistakes, costs more than a system where life without parole (means what it says) is the most severe sentence , and the death penalty is not a deterrent. It can be very hard on the families of murder victims, prolonging their ordeal as the legal process continues. Life without parole is swift and sure.

Applying common sense, with the facts, does not mean that we excuse brutal crimes or the people who commit them.

Answer 2

The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent to crimes that are punishable by death. An eye for an eye. Yes mistakes have been made and people wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. With the technology that is around today it is harder to be wrong than right. That being said, I believe in the death penalty the problem i have with it is it does not have the deterring value it should and why is this you may ask. Well, because it takes so long and the retrials and appeals take forever. Now if it were like it was with Saddam then it would be a true deterrent. You are found guilty you get one appeal then you die end of story.

Answer 3

I know for certain, that every life taken by a convicted killer, either while in prison, or if they escape or are pardoned, is innocent. The death penalty is not about vengeance or closure for relatives of victims and I do not agree with public execution or private audience. BUT it is the most effective and certain way to make society safe from that said killer. I don't like it, but if there is no question of guilt, and no remorse, and especially when deliberate and premeditated, these monsters with a depraved indifference for the lives of others deserve it not for themselves. And especially when they killed a witness who testified or might, in a criminal court case, because without the death penalty many gangs can count on good odds of no or little jail terms if they just go ahead and murder or threaten to murder a witness. The same as DNA makes it to their advantage to kill and dispose of a rape victim, which is why children disappear. With modern DNA evidence it helps narrow down the guilt question, and most of the supposed "innocents" executed were at least accessories, like people who only held a victim while another dealt the murdering blow. Protect the innocent by executing the guilty, and I say and mean that regardless of age, sex, creed or race. I don't like it, but at some point we have to do what we have to do for our society to survive. I'm not God, if I was pretending to be perfect, then you could call me a hypocrit. .

Answer 4

You should make the distinction between murder and killing. They are two different thing. The death penalty is for murder. Those that receive the death penalty are not murdered but executed. Murder is a terrible crime and deserves to be terribly punished.

Certainly mistakes can and have been made. But a society that refuses to have execute people for certain crimes will have sever social issues. Just look around.

Killing IS NOT always wrong. But murder is.

Answer 5

Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to government ordained killing. And the biggest hypocrites of them all (IMHO) are those who call themselves "pro-life" when they are 100% for the death penalty and "pre-emptive" wars. Caring about an unborn child doesn't make a person pro-life when that same person supports death in other situations.

Killing someone who killed someone doesn't make it right - it makes it even; but so does life without the possibility of parole.

Whether it is an unborn child, a killer on death row, or an innocent victim of war - life is life and should be treasured and respected as such.

Answer 6

If you lump all killing as murder, I'd hate to see your opinion of one of your own loved ones, should they kill an attacker in self defense. The death penalty is reserved for the worst of scum committing acts of brutality. They are not even going to give the death penalty to someone who kills his wife when caught in the act of cheating as this person may be rehabilitated. The people you are trying to protect are those that prey on the weak like child rapists and serial killers. Why waste good money keeping them alive?

Edit: To "KIND LADY" below. The hypocrisy you speak of concerning "pro-life" people works both ways! Pro-choice advocates are usually the same liberals that are against the death penalty, indicating it is OK to kill an innocent life but wrong to end the life of one that has committed heinous acts against mankind! Actually, the stance of "pro-lifers" is not hypocrisy at all. We are consistent in our belief of the right to life for the "innocent"!

Answer 7

I was a victim of a double shooting in the head....once in my lower right cheek, and the other in between my eyes point blank...I am disabled....I have limited mobility....before I was a victim, I was pro-death....and still I believe that if they will not rehabilitate, give the perpetrator death....now more that ever. Besides, they (the Investigator and the DA) has not convicted the guy...because they want more proof....but that is another question all of it's own.....

Answer 8

Difference between murder and killing someone in defense or as punishment.


They are many flaws in abortion but that is defending to no end by Pro-choice.

What crime did the fetus do for a death sentence anyways?

Answer 9

finally someone who makes sense. That's the same way I feel about it. All I see it as is a form of vengeance because really that's why they do it; to "justify'' the death of whoever was murdered. I'd rather someone have to spend the rest of their life knowing what they did and then letting God decide what to do with them.

Answer 10

Once for the death penalty and used to hate to see these slogans. Now I've grown up and realize tis true, Tis true.