Do you think that the death penalty should be banned?

Answer 1

Some of the answers you have received have serious (but not unusual) mistakes. This is an issue that needs to be considered using verifiable and sourced facts. Here are a few.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. (D is mistaken about this.)

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic. (Daff – you should check into the myth that prison can be luxurious. Watch some of the MSNBC programs on supermax prisons.)

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. (Note to compdrmt- many of the men on death row who were found to be innocent had served over a decade and their initial appeals had already been turned down. Appeals are meant to determine if the trial was fair by constitutional standards, and not to second guess the verdict.)

Re: DNA
DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. (For compdrmt) It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s 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.)
D is wrong on this. Take a look at FBI stats (source list)

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t 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: Race
A defendant is twice as likely to face the death penalty if the victim was white is than if the victim was non white.

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.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. We should make up our minds using common sense based on solid facts, not revenge.

Answer 2

No I don't, in fact I do not think it is used nearly enough. The fact of the matter is that the sher idea of the death penalty has some effect on peoples minds which in turn CAN contribute to less crimes. Start looking at statistics, there are states that sparingly use the death penalty and view what the crime rate for higher rated felonies are. Regardless it is used as a tatic to deter crime, just as people usually will not rob a guy in front of a cop because of the fear of being caught, the concept can carry over to different scenarios...for example, um if I kill all 5 of my kids is there any chance I could get off easy, or will I have a chance at capital punishment?

Also, I do not see why people simpthize with criminials, they did a crime, they should do the crime. If I was to murder people in cold blood, I fail to see why I should be given a break. The logic I see is here is that I destroyed someones life yet, I should expect people to feel sorry for me and give me another chance in society (which in many cases, murders can get off in about 25 years) so I can possibly have a better life than before I killed the guy, if you don't believe me, look at some of the criminals that spend their time reading and getting degrees, some even become millionaires after they are out.

Also, I think we should stop wasting precious tax payer money on appeals, and stop making the death penalty a MANATOARY (yes, its required in all states) appeal. I think that we need to focus more on weither the guy did it or not the first time than waste his time in prision over 5 years to prove he didn't do it later, and waste lawsuit money on someone that did no wrong while the killer is still out there.

Also I think all executions would be televised on public networks, and yes parents would be able to block them to see if it will help deter crime.

Anyway I guess what I am tiring to say that it should the governments job to make its people safer, and weither that it comes though issuing more concealed weapons permits or whatnot it needs to be done. I look at higher felony counts and see once they get out that they are still a threat to the safety of others, and yes there are some cases where this is false; I think a good analogy is where I would have a mad dog as a pet (that has harmed someone, which in most cases the dog is put down) anyway I could allow him to live but he would always present a danger to others around him.

Answer 3

Yes. I believe that death is a fitting punishment for many crimes, some of which are murder, kidnapping and child molestation. However, the problem lies in the determination of guilt or innocence. In many cases, the jury gets it wrong or is fed bad information during the trial, information that has been tampered with or manipulated by prosecutors hoping to further their careers with a big conviction or by cops trying to futher their careers with a big bust. No, the cops, the prosecutors and the juries can't be trusted to get the verdict right 100% of the time, but the death penalty is 100% fatal. I say give them life without parole in an Alaskan gulag.

Answer 4

definite - it really is a shown reality that typically the legal gadget receives it incorrect. because 1973 interior the U.S. on my own, one hundred forty human beings were released from demise row because they were exonerated by potential of DNA and different info. those are all those who were got here across responsible “previous a authentic looking doubt.” regrettably, DNA info isn't obtainable in maximum homicide circumstances. So, see you later because the demise penalty is in position, you're extremely a lot sure to typically execute an possibility free individual. That on my own is reason adequate to oppose capital punishment, yet there are quite some others: - value - by using legal equipment designed to diminish wrongful executions (and the large fee of protecting demise row centers), it prices taxpayers a lot more effective to execute someone than to imprison them for existence. - As you reported, this is not a deterrent - violent crime expenses are continuously larger in demise penalty jurisdictions. - it really is erratically and arbitrarily utilized. - because the U.S. is between the finest last countries with capital punishment, many different countries refuse to extradite frequent criminals who might want to be status trial the following. - It fosters a custom of violence by potential of declaring that killing is an proper answer to a venture. - Jesus change into antagonistic to it (see Matthew 5:7 & 5:38-39, James 4:12, Romans 12:17-21, John 8:7, and James a million:20). - existence without parole (LWOP) is on the books in maximum states now (all except Alaska), and it potential what it says. those who get this sentence are taken off the streets. For sturdy. - As Voltaire once wrote, "allow the punishments of criminals be sensible. A hanged guy is sturdy for no longer something; a guy condemned to public works nevertheless serves the country, and is a residing lesson." - no matter if you’re a hardened criminal or a authorities representing the human beings, killing an unarmed man or woman is incorrect. era. “He did it first” isn't a valid excuse.

Answer 5

In it's current state, yes, I think it should be. With the many, many years it takes for an inmate to make their way to the execution chamber, it only puts a greater burden on society. Not to mention the rare occasions when someone who was innocent was put towards the death penalty (or someone guilty got away because of technicalites created by lawyers). If these can be worked out (shorter times, better evidence/truthful lawyers), then keep it.

Until then, I am for using those on death row for other purposes. If they took away from society, time for them to give back. Forced labor in non-ideal conditions (i.e. mining, hazardous material, just some ideas), research (got a new medicine/condition to research, but can't find the right subjects?), etc.

None of this hold in cells and give stuff to them to maintain quality of life. By committing atrocious acts, they proved they are not societal human beings capable of contributing to the greater good. Therefore, they do not need to be treated as such.

Answer 6

No however it should only be used in cases where there is NO doubt of guilt. I do not mean beyond reasonable doubt, I mean beyond any doubt, such as DNA evidence, multiple eye witnesses etc. It is just to easy for a person to be railroaded through the system.

If even one person is put to death who is innocent then there is a problem. We have already seen cases where innocents have been put to death and others were they were spared from years in prison and on death row.

I do think those who are to be put to death should get one appeal and then the sentence carried out within several months.

Answer 7

the reason crime abounds more is because of opinions brought out against and for death penalty. yes, it's cruel and morally wrong to kill human who comitted such a crime... but is it justifiable to forget his evil deed too? life imprisonment can be pardoned, but the victim still remains as a victim scarred and dead (perhaps).

it is unjust to take the law into our hands? but what about self defense? if by defending your life, you killed your assailant, is that justifiable too? remember, self-defense or not, the truth remains, you killed another human. but is it right to impose the death penalty on him?

truth is, a crime is a crime. and the more heinous a crime is, the more effective to impose the death penalty. so as to teach these criminals that crime doesn't pay indeed. and that no crime can escape justice... be it the death penalty.

Answer 8

nope, there are some evil people out there that just Need to be put out of existence. I wont get into the fight over does it deter crime. i really ont know that.
I do know that if some wack job hurt/killed my family members i would be there to induce horrible pain to them.
like a 22 in the joints like ankle then elbow. let em suffer and then make more pain. then we can use an iron rod to break all bones. this is reserved for people like Jeffrey Dahmer or wacko's cutting of heads because they heard it on the news.

Answer 9

I feel that there are some offenses that warrant such a punishment, violence against children, murderers, etc. but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE convicted of a violent crime should be executed. I thought the prison system is meant to rehabilitate, and they should at least give that a shot.

Answer 10

no, would you let a person that has killed a human being should have the right to live? Why should a person that has killed another human being be able to live. You do get life in prison if you murder. If you truly did not mean to kill another person, that is one excuse. For example, while working at a construction site on the 3rd floor, when you accidently drop your hammer. It hits an innocent bystander in the head killing them instantly.