life-imprisonment versus capital punishment?

Question

what is u r idea about this? do u agree or disagree why explain ur opinions.

Answer 1

I understand and respect both views of this subject. I personally have no problem with capital punishment. Sure people argue that we have no right to end someones life... I guess I agree somewhat. Life imprisonment is very expensive. Our tax dollars are paying for this. Now prisons are sadly overcrowded. I guess in theory capital punishment will lower the number of inmates.

I know people argue that people should have enough time to think about they did and repent. Well to actually make it to the dealth penatly you go through so many appeals. Most people are on death row for years and years. Thats plenty of time to feel remorseful. Besides if your sittin in death row i'm sure you'll think more about what you did when you know what is comming.

I don't think people should abuse the death penalty. Like president Bush had the record number of executions in the history of the death penatly when he was governor of Texas... I find that rediculous.

Well this is a really hot topic.... I am for it

Answer 2

I am a Catholic. I do not support the death penalty.

Let me establish, however, that while this is undoubtedly an influence on my opinion, I do not take the Church's word for face value. I do not agree with all of my Church's teachings, nor do I unquestioningly accept those that I *do* agree with.

So how then, do I explain the wrongness of capital punishment? The foundations of my opinion rest in a basic religious conviction: it is wrong to take a life, any life. Every person is better than his worst deed -- there are no exceptions. And isn't this a difficult concept to grasp? Think about it! Hitler is a better person than his heinous crimes -- how is that possible? Because there's a person buried somewhere beneath the atrocities he committed. No ordinary person kills in such a way -- what was it that made him so wild? Clearly his mental health was not up to par, to say the least.

And of course, this leads directly into the next important point. Sympathy for the victims. How can I feel sorry for a man such as Hitler, a man who desires no sympathy, when there are millions of innocent victims who had no say, whatsoever, in their pains? Where is my sympathy for them? And to this, I answer that the victims are part of the package of the death penalty. What do we want to get out of ending the life of another human being? Revenge, closure... I believe that therapy and counselling is much more important -- ending another life often does not cure these feelings -- indeed, it causes more pain, for the family of the criminal.

So what we need is rehabilitation for the criminal, and extreme counselling for the victims' families. These families need to reverse what has been wrought upon them by the criminal -- to fight back, but not through more murder. The criminal needs to understand his wrongdoings, and find the person within himself.

Yet this is all in theory. Is it possible? Prison was meant to be a rehabilitation center. It certainly is not effective as such. How is any of this possible? All I know for sure is that by ending another life, we rob the victims' families, and the criminals' families of discovering a better response to violence.

Answer 3

I think that you are asking for solid facts. Here are some. All are verifiable and sourced.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The extra costs begin even before the trial.

Re: Speeding up the process and possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Many of these had spent well over a decade on death row before their innocence was established. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person.

Re: DNA
DNA evidence is available in no more than 10% of all murder cases. It is no guarantee that we will never execute an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.

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
48 states now have life without parole on the books. Life without parole means what it says. Being locked up in a tiny cell, 23 hours a day, with nothing to look forward to, 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.

Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean a person condones brutal crimes or excuses the people who commit them. People should make up their minds using common sense based on the facts.

Answer 4

I strongly believe that the punishment ought to fit the crime.
Two examples:

Timothy McVeigh - Killed 169 people in Oklahoma City. I think he absolutely deserved the punishment he received - death by injection.
Wife Abusers, Child Molesters and the like - I say send 'em to San Quentin to spend the rest of their lives. Inmates HATE the wife and child abusers...and if we're lucky, they'll just get killed at San Quentin regardless (Scott Peterson is a good example of this. Killed his pregnant wife, now spends his time at Quentin). I'm waiting for the headline "Inmates couldn't stand him - so they got rid of him".

Answer 5

Capital punishment would be a deterant if the amount of capitol punishments equaled the amount of capitol crimes. If a states was putting to death 100 inmates who had committed capitol crimes and 100 capitol crimes had been committed...people would say may I better think about committing this capitol crime twice. Don't give them 25 years to think about it....let them have 1 appeal they lose that and off to the neddle room.

Answer 6

Life Imprisonment. Executing someone lets them off too easy. They need to rot in a tiny cell for the remainder of their pathetic lives, knowing, pondering, paying for what they have done for eternity. I'm not talking about a cell with a TV, computer etc, I mean nothing...they need to suffer....

Answer 7

Some believe that executing someone is letting them off easy. If that is so, why do they appeal for years and years to stay alive. Life is prison is better than some of their lives on the outside.
I think it is "cruel and inhuman" to murder someone in cold blood or rape and beat a woman to death. If you shed innocent blood with premeditation you should be put to death.

Answer 8

Why are there in basic terms 2 options? And for what crimes? wherein circumstances? i'm for penitentiary sentences that wisely replicate the severity of a criminal offense related to others, and is sufficient to punish and rehabilitate with out being too long (see you later simply by fact the guy in question is not considered available to society of course). some penitentiary sentences (quite interior the U. S.) are only hassle-free stupid. it is completely sensible to condemn a sadistic serial killer to their finished existence in penitentiary; it is not so sensible to prepare the comparable sentence to somebody who lost administration in a temper quite than did something with chilly blooded maliciousness. it is only punishing somebody for dropping administration, which isn't 'evil', it is human. it could have undesirable effects you would be unable to repair yet stupid sentencing does not exchange that, it only expenditures the taxpayer extra and ruin somebody else's family individuals's lives to boot simply by fact the sufferer's. finished existence sentences might desire to be reserved for the main deadly offenders (as they're interior the united kingdom). i think of the gadget interior the united kingdom is a solid one. there's a collection gadget wherein persons conviced of homicide acquire an automatic existence sentence-yet this does not actually recommend existence. A minimum term is set and based on the form they make they might serve this term or lots extra (or perhaps actually existence in the event that they're theory risky adequate), yet they're on what's called a 'existence license' which places particular regulations on them for something of their existence.