what has the death penalty improved? has crime gone down?
2007-01-24 10:04:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by sydb1967 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
You already have some very good answers- here are some of the verifiable facts about the death penalty.
Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than lifetime incarceration. (New York State statistics- 7 people sentenced to death since 1995, cost over 200 million dollars. None had more than one appeal, 3 had not yet had any. Annual cost to incarcerate someone in NY $35,000.)
Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.
Re: DNA
DNA evidence is available in no more than 20% of all murder cases. It is no guarantee that we will never execute an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.
Re: speed
If we speed the process we are bound to execute an innocent person.
Re: Deterrence
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)
Re: Alternatives
More and more states have life without parole on the books. Life without parole means what it says and is no picnic.
Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty is not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??
Re: Victims families
People should know that the death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.
Murder victims families have diverse views of the death penalty. Some oppose it unconditionally. (See the Journey of Hope, www.journeyofhope.org.)
Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean a person condones brutal crimes or excuses the people who commit them. I believe that the dialogue on the death penalty should be based on common sense based on the facts, not on revenge.
2007-01-24 22:38:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know if I will be much help because I personally support the death penalty but I'll answer your question anyway because maybe it might help you to see other side of this issue. The reason I believe in it is because some murders are so horrific that the person who committed them does not deserve to go on living. Think about it.... what if someone brutally murdered a person who was close to you, who you loved very much such as your mom, dad, or your innocent child, wouldn't you want that person to be eradicated from the face of the earth? How would you feel if that person continued smugly living their life (even if it was in prison) and they could still actually visit with their own loved ones? Wouldn't that make you so angry and outraged that they had more rights than what you or your loved one ever had? I mean, keep in mind, you would not have even had a chance to say goodbye to your loved one, yet they continue to see the people they care about. What if they went on living somewhat comfortably in prison as if nothing ever happened, got their college degree there and were eventually paroled at some point? Wouldn't you be livid at the injustice that they were allowed a second chance but your loved one wasn't? If someone takes a life, they can't honestly expect theirs to be spared. When they committed a murder, they were well aware that there would be consequences if they were caught, but they chose to ignore those consequences. I have no sympathy for them. Just my point of view. Good luck on your debate.
2007-01-24 19:12:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jenny A_331 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Many people who will be con, don't ban, will argue the virtue of the punishment and how it discourages further violators of the law, so on and so forth. Then, the other pros will cite evidence to the contrary and both sides will end in a stalemate. Oh, I also forgot to mention the various moral dilemma and contridictions that will spice up the arguement.
My con is this. I don't want them on this planet anymore. I wish the death penalty was swifter and applied to other crimes like sex crimes that ruin someone's life. I do wish that we could guarantee guilt, but if it's clear - rid them. Some may say that's playing God - I'll let god deal with them when they are no longer around to threaten me, my family, or my society. I don't care about how effective it is to discourage other perpetrators, I just want them gone for good.
2007-01-24 18:12:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Whootziedude 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Justice System is not perfect - but death is final. You can take back a life sentence but you can't bring someone back from the dead.
The justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, if there is a smidgen of a chance of innocence., it should still be available later.
It is barbaric and uncivilized. The US is the LAST major industrialized nation to still have the death penalty.
Revenge in anger is uncivilized, and we are better human beings than that.
An execution costs far more on the average than keeping a person in prison for the rest of their life with the appeals, attorney costs, etc....
Hope this helps.
2007-01-24 18:21:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that the strongest arguement is the amount of wrongful convictions that they government seems to get. Use examples of the DNA reversals in Texas (who has the highest Death Penalty convitions and executions). Hammer away at the facts that black people are more likely to be executed than whites. Look up the percentages on the web and government sites.
Good luck...
BTW, I'm pro-death penalty.
2007-01-24 18:03:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by therazorsx 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Search - Death Row inmates innocent on Yahoo and see the litany of names. In IL a group of college students proved four, death row inmates to be innocent a few years ago. They were on death row for eighteen years if I remember correctly. After that, George Ryan called for a moratorium of all death penalties until the system could be fixed..
2007-01-24 18:20:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
You could always use the old argument against "cruel and unusual punishment". Sounds like a good debate! Have fun with it.
"what has the death penalty improved? has crime done down?" No, but that's one less idiot that will re-offend.
I think all baby rapists should face the death penalty.
Screaming Eagle - great answer!
2007-01-24 18:06:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jadis 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hey I am against banning it. Yes no death is peaceful but you think that when someone kills someone they do it nicely? Heck no! If someone you loved was murdered you would not want to see that murderer still alive. I say put them in a little room wit guns. That should go nicely! One argument you can use is that the few innocents will not die. Hope you have fun!
2007-01-24 22:52:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Iamhere 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
We have a man in our town who killed his mother-in-law, his wife, and cut the throats of his very young daughters. One daughter survived. This was 15 years ago and he still sits there in jail with his computer and web page posing as a pastor. This is why we should ban death penalities so we don't make this poor guy suffer, huh? No help huh?
2007-01-24 18:07:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by zeepogee 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
If an innocent person is executed, that means the real murderer got off scott free.
Jesus Christ was innocent, was executed, and the murderer Barabbas was set free.
Why do you trust the government to decide who may live and who may die? Is the government that reliable?
If the government is not smart enough to rehabilitate murderers, why do you think they are smart enough to decided who may live or die?
Isn't execution, where a group of men and women, premeditate, justify, decide and plan to kill someone? Isn't that the definition of first degree murder?
When the government kills, it sends a message to the people that killing is okay, when justified.
There is no doubt in my mind, that some people should be executed. The problem is, I don't trust the government to do it.
2007-01-24 18:01:23
·
answer #11
·
answered by Darth Vader 6
·
2⤊
2⤋