it may make these friggin crack head murderers and rapists think twice before their next offense.
2007-01-17 14:26:34 · 16 answers · asked by pretzelman5000 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Utah had that option until 2004. The last person executed in Utah by firing squad was in 1996. I have no problem with it.
And for those who say that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, ask John Albert Taylor (he was executed by firing squad in Utah for the rape and strangulation of an 11 year old girl) how many more girls he will rape and kill. I bet the answer is 0! Sounds like a deterrent to me, he will never do anything like that again. I could be wrong, but the recidivism rate among those who have been put to death for their crimes is right around 0.
BTW, Idaho and Oklahoma still have that option as a backup.
2007-01-17 15:59:12 · answer #1 · answered by Jeff F 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you should first find out the facts about the death penalty-
It is not a deterrent- states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not. People who commit murder do not think they will be caught, let alone punished, that is, if they think at all.
The death penalty costs much more than life sentences. Much of the extra cost comes before conviction, in fact even before trial. (In my opinion, we should spend the extra money for victims services where it is really needed.)
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.
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.
Once someone is executed for a crime the case is closed. If the wrong person was convicted, the real killer is still out there.
Death sentences can be very hard on victims’ families. The process takes a long time and they are forced to relive their ordeal over and over again, in courts and in the media. Some murder victims’ family members have said that although they support the death penalty in theory, they do not want to see it in the case of their murdered loved one because of how the process affects families like theirs. Life without parole is swift and sure and rarely results in appeals.
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.
2007-01-17 15:02:28 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty is unethical and barbaric. life imprisonment allows time for the perpetrator to think about their crimes. An eye for an eye is way old testament. Incidentally, in Oregon, rapist often get minimal punishment and also in some other states.
Many murders are committed by unstable people or by ones completely unable to consider their crime at the time. Cold blooded murder by the Military deserves life in prison also. When considering murderers what about the crimes where angry drivers crash into someone or attack them with weapons. How about drugs that Dr's prescribe or pollution deaths by big companies?
2007-01-17 14:36:33 · answer #3 · answered by Terrania 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because labor camps would be much more productive.
In addition, why should criminals be allowed to die a short death without that much relative pain when the rest of us have to endure as much pain as life causes us without any legal way out?
2007-01-17 14:30:36 · answer #4 · answered by contemplating 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Firing squads rule. I hate hanging, too many head popping off incidents, and electric chair, i hate when hair burns off heads. lethal injection....boring. Firing Squad is the way to go! That's I would like to be executed.
2007-01-17 14:31:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if we could watch on pay-per-view. They could use the proceeds to benefit a victim's trust fund of some sort.
2007-01-17 15:06:46 · answer #6 · answered by nauticalpsycho 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we are making the death penalty too lenient.
2007-01-17 15:29:34 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the United States should get rid of capital punishment altogether. Additionally, capital punishment does not deter crime.
2007-01-17 14:35:41 · answer #8 · answered by MO 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes and it should be done in public so creeps can see it isn't glorious. No fanfare, Only one appeal and within 30 days of sentencing.
2007-01-17 14:40:31 · answer #9 · answered by jekin 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if they sold tickets and pay per view. We could clean up the national debt in zip time.
2007-01-17 14:36:19 · answer #10 · answered by John H 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋