If they are going to murder and maim for the pleasure of it - shouldn't they have to pay how their victim did?
Their victim didn't get a chance to appeal to a higher court or say they reformed or found God or just made a bad decision.
Killers have more rights than their victims - so what is fair?
Lethal injection is under debate now as being too slow .
Does anyone know how many killers timed how long their victim suffered?
Or does common sense tell you the killer didn't care as long as the result was the death of another human being?
2007-02-03 13:26:09 · 12 answers · asked by Akkita 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I am all for that. Today we let killing criminals use the system for themselves. We pay for lawyers for them we pay to house and feed them during the process. We pay and they keep on living. A lot of their victims had only seconds to prepare for death, if that much. Why are we giving this scum years to tax and over load the system.
Say what you want about China and their civil rights, but when you are found guilty and sentenced to death, it takes place the next day.
A lot of people say that the death sentence isn't a deterrent. True the way it works now because they live for years and actually end up with better treatment than the average prisoner. If carried out the death penalty will guarantee that that person never kills another again.
2007-02-03 13:36:16 · answer #1 · answered by ttpawpaw 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
People oppose the death penalty for practical reasons. Here are some verifiable and sourced facts.
Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. Extra costs begin even before the trial.
Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. 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 isn't 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
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 solid facts, not on revenge.
2007-02-04 03:52:43 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did they give their victim any consideration or options? Convicted murderers spend far too many years on death row. In cases where there is overwhelming evidence - video, multiple witnesses - the sentence should be carried out s soon as the trial is over.
2007-02-03 13:31:22 · answer #3 · answered by DR_NC 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the only thing cruel about the death pentaly is that it is not carried out,within a reasonable time.we the people have to pay for their mistakes,for their food and shelter and their medical and everything else.i dont think it ought to be abused but some crimes just need this punishment,used humanly it would be a deterranment to the crime wave going on.The vicitms didnt get that chance so neither should they.
2007-02-03 14:03:29 · answer #4 · answered by peppersham 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm for the "eye for an eye" approach.
Too many killers claim they are "victims" of their environment, etc. Grow up! 85% of the population claims abuse of one form or another. If everyone who claimed abuse, committed murder, what kind of society would we live in?
Then again, think of all the real abused children, what would you do to their parents?
2007-02-03 13:44:11 · answer #5 · answered by caron162 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I certainly am for Capital Punishment. The killers certainly did not give their victims a choice to live or die, so why should they have all the privielages?
2007-02-03 13:48:58 · answer #6 · answered by idaho_native57 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Akkita
I agree with you and so do many others. Unfortunately, we have groups such as Human Rights, Red Cross, ACLU to name a few. Then there is the excuse that the criminal had a lousy childhood. I say fry them.
2007-02-03 13:38:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Cruel is relative, and it's only unusual if you don't do it the same way every time.
2007-02-03 13:32:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. we are not god, and who are we to put someone to death? i know people will disagree, but though shall not kill. so we kill to punish them? doesnt really make sense to me
2007-02-03 13:34:23 · answer #9 · answered by *never give up* 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Proponent further sayeth not .
2007-02-03 13:39:12 · answer #10 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋