2007-01-13 07:35:55 · 9 answers · asked by Totiboti 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Some good answers here.
But, Streakin Deacon and Ornery and Mean want to speed up the process. Here’s something for us to think about- Over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. In the overwhelming number of these cases, the evidence was not DNA. DNA is not a miracle cure for wrongful convictions. The exonerees had spent many years on death row before being found innocent. Speeding up the process would guarantee the execution of an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.
The death penalty costs much more than life sentences. A great deal of the extra cost comes before conviction. There is an unmet need for more well funded victims’ assistance programs. (In my opinion, that is where we should spend the extra money.)
Life without parole is on the books in more and more states. It means what it says. It is no picnic to be locked up in a tiny cell for 23 of 24 hours a day. Life without parole costs much less than the death penalty.
Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean you excuse or coddle criminals who commit brutal and depraved acts. They must be punished severely. But we need to use common sense based on the facts, not to focus on revenge which accomplishes nothing.
2007-01-13 12:34:31 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am all for it. I do believe if is was self defense or something...death penalty is wrong.. however, most of the convicts on death row planned the murder or it happened during a rape, etc.. I lost a fiance to murder once and his murderer got 2 years or less ..I think people on death row should die within 30 days...free up the space for rapist and molestors so they don't have to let them out (for no space) for them to do it again.. The westside shootings that took place....Mitchell Johnson got a few years in jail and our at age 21.. he was found last week with a gun and arrested for DUI.. He really was rehabilitated wasn't he.. They planned these murders for weeks and even told people they were going to do it.. These people can't be rehabbed.. (Look at Mitchell Johnson).. it's just a matter of time until he will KILL again..I could think of a LOT better things to do with my taxes than take care of sorry azzes for 20 years while they get a free education, free healthcare (and yes, they even quaify for transplants), and free everything else...
2007-01-13 19:41:07 · answer #2 · answered by chilover 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am in favor of the death penalty, but we go about it all wrong!
We (Americans) sentence a fellow to death, 20 to 30 years later he is STILL on death row! WTF! When the death sentence is imposed, set the date for no more than 2 years from the date of sentencing! If the convict (or his supporters) can, in those 2 years, prove that the conviction was wrong ... set that person free (with a set reimbursement equal to the time served multiplied by the LOWEST of the following: Minimum wage, 40 hours per week, Their highest wage for the period before their arrest, the amount of money they "claim" they lost during incarceration.
Any further payment should be subject to established civil court law (example: prove that a witness lied under oath ... collect from the witness, not hte state!)
2007-01-13 21:33:01 · answer #3 · answered by ornery and mean 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am truly torn with regard to this matter. In some instances, it really appears to be the only way. But somewhere inside, I feel like the true pain would be felt by the convicted by spending their remaining living years locked away. But this takes away form the midset of the death penalty, which I believe is to get this person out of society.
2007-01-13 15:44:50 · answer #4 · answered by soozemusic 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Against it. The US is the only 'civilized' country to have it - and they have the largest prison population and one of the highest rates of violent crime. Wow - that sure is a deterrant.
2007-01-13 15:42:58 · answer #5 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
against:
1. we don't have the right to take life.
2. it is not a deterrent.
3. violence is not a good example to set.
4. justice should not be vengeful
5. sometimes the innocent die.
2007-01-13 15:43:47 · answer #6 · answered by Boring 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am in favor of it! My only regret is its not carried out with in 30 days like old Sadams instead of 20-30 years while tax payers support him and his lawyer.
2007-01-13 16:17:32 · answer #7 · answered by Streakin' Deacon 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am against it on moral reasons, but I also object to my tax dollars being used to kill people when it is actually cheaper to lock them up and throw away the key.
2007-01-13 15:42:23 · answer #8 · answered by skip 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I AM ALL FOR IT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ALL THESE MURDERS HANGING ABOUT IN JAIL AND A LOT LESS CRIME
2007-01-13 15:41:31 · answer #9 · answered by JUNE f 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋