2007-01-20 10:30:49 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Tough question. Hypothetically I do not agree with the death penalty, but when somebody kills someone you love ... I guess we change our thinking.
2007-01-20 11:33:03 · answer #1 · answered by Coquine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I respectfully disagree with Bostonian and Susan. The death penalty, if carried out in a manner that results in a reasonably swift sentence without the risks of unfair imposition, either because the defendant is guilty and deserving of the death penalty under the factors prescribed by the Supreme Court or because the death penalty in a jurisdiction is more likely to be imposed on particular groups for the same crime, is a punishment that states should be able to impose. In Massachusetts, where Bostonian is likely from, the Supreme Judicial Court has determined that the death penalty is unconstitutional under the state constitution. In California, the courts have been very very slow to permit executions, with the result that over 400 people wait on San Quentin's death row. That seems to me to be unfair to the people who support executions and to the defendants who live in a limbo for decades awaiting their fate. The death penalty, if carried out swiftly and fairly is an effective deterrent and law enforcement tool and certainly prevents recidivism.
2007-01-20 22:32:35 · answer #2 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My state the death penalty is carried out all the time. I think the death penalty is a deterrent for some crimes. And I think that if anyone has taken another persons life during a crime that a family member of the one murdered should be able to beat the crap out of the murderer before he's killed.
2007-01-20 18:42:29 · answer #3 · answered by Extra Blue Note 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I see that you already got a very informed answer from Bostonian. I think it is extremely important to know the facts before making up your mind on this issue.
Actually much of the extra costs of the death penalty begin way before the appeals begin. An extensive pre trial investigation into the victim’s background is required, it takes much longer to select a jury, the prosecution team is larger (and so is the defense if possible) and the trial itself is much more complicated. The trial really consists of two trials- one to determine guilt or innocence and one to decide the penalty. Each stage requires its own set of witnesses.
Just a couple of other facts
The death penalty is not a deterrent. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not have it. Most killers do not think they will be caught, if they think at all.
Over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. DNA is not a miracle cure for wrongful convictions of murder. DNA evidence is available in less than 20% of all murder cases. It is human nature to make mistakes.
Most states now have life without parole on the books. It means what it says and it is no picnic to be locked into a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, for the rest of one’s life.
The death penalty is very hard on families of murder victims. They are forced to relive their ordeal over and over in the courts and in the media. Life without parole is swift, sure and rarely appealed. Murder victim’s family members who have said they support the death penalty in principal have also said they prefer life without parole because of the effect of the death penalty process on families like theirs.
Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean you excuse brutal crimes or the people who commit them. This debate should be decided on the basis of verifiable facts, using common sense and not revenge.
2007-01-20 21:03:46 · answer #4 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. I can't think of a single case where I would have voted for the death penalty. Nor would I want it if it were one of my family members or other loved ones who were the victim.
1. It actually costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life without parole when you add the costs of all of the appeals and legal representation for the appeals.
2. There have been numerous cases where innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death. Thanks to the work of the folks at The Innocence Project, many of these poor people have been exhonerated. There is little question that innocent persons have been unjustly convicted and executed. Being imprisoned unjustly is always terrible, but at least it can be reversed. Capital punishment is permanent.
3. Why give them a free ticket to meet their maker sooner? Timothy McVeigh was most terrified of being imprisoned for life in solitary confinement. He welcomed his execution. Why give the guilty what they often actually want?
2007-01-20 18:49:10 · answer #5 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No because for the victims of heinous crimes,death penalty is just a short cut of a sentence,whereas if you sentence a person for life in a solitary confinement for the rest of that persons life,it is worst than killing that person 10 times,
2007-01-20 18:42:00 · answer #6 · answered by Lionel M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Some crimes to me (especially against those unable to defend themselves, children, the handicapped, elderly etc) are so horrendous, I can't imagine thatcriminal be allowed to live. "An eye for an eye".
2007-01-20 18:41:19 · answer #7 · answered by Tweet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Because it makes for some lip smackin' eatin'.
2007-01-20 20:12:41 · answer #8 · answered by Cracker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. what they have done to deserve it, can't be reversed. do unto others...
2007-01-20 18:38:59 · answer #9 · answered by St♥rmy Skye 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋