My death penalty question?

Question

I preivously asked a question that was biased against the death so iam going to ask one in the devils advocate. My brothers gf had a friend who worked in syria for a few years. she said that the society was the most peacful of anywere shes been due to how the carry out the death penalty. It is true that the appeals process takes a long time. Do yout hink the american society should resort to cutting the appealls time to a years time instead of decades and do you think we should have the death penalty for crime other than murder and should age have any bearing on it (have to be over 18 of course) wouldnt this make this alot safer of a society to live in? I mean think living were we dont have to be afraid of rape or getting thuged in the city.

Answer 1

No. This will not do anything more than kill more innocent Americans.

The US penal system is flawed. Good lawyers are most often capable of preventing their client from receiving the death penalty and court appointed lawyers are seldomly good. Therefore, the poor people are disproportionately killed. Couple that with the fact that the police department and district attorney will occasionally try to prosecute a suspect just so the public thinks they are doing their job and keeping the streets safe, rather than the fact that they are actually sure that the person is guilty.

Most importantly, the cultures here and in Syria are extremely different. We are much more secular here and have a profound culture of nonconformity. This may be partly due to the fact that we were formed by a revolution and that out of that we created one of the most impressive democratic systems in the world. However it came about, this is completely opposite of the culture in the Muslim world. They are raised to conform and punished if they do not.

We would not see the same result if we suddenly instituted their style of law - it is purely a difference in culture.

Answer 2

I don't think it should be shortened. Over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. The evidence was DNA is a small number of these. DNA evidence is available in no more than 10% of all murders.

Most of these many had spent years on death row, some two decades. If the process were speeded up, they would be dead.

Another thing a lot of people don't know is that the appeals process is not set up to look into claims of innocence. It is set up to decide whether the trial was fair and met constitutional standards. To prove innocence, a defendent has to get help outside of the usual appeals system, in federal courts, seeking what is called habeas corpus relief. This is very hard to get. Innocence Projects (which charge defendents no fees) have to do a great deal of research to get this kind of relief.

I know several of the men who were released from death rows. They are decent, law abiding men.

By the way, the death penalty is not a deterrent. States that have the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not have it.

Answer 3

Complex question. . . So many things to discuss.

On the appeals process, I am torn. See, in the one hand, I think that the punishment should be carried out asap. But on the other hand, those appeals processes are there to prevent us from killing an innocent person. I would hate to think that someone innocent of that particular crime paid with their life, while the true killer went free.

On the administration of the death penalty, I think that murder is the crime that is heinous enough for such a punishment. But I think that it could be given out to those criminals that are beyond rehabilitation. Some criminals will never change, and they have no desire to. Those are the ones that should pay with their lives. Those are the criminals that if given life in prison look at it as free room and board, as well as a place to socialize and work out. It isn't a punishment to them. THOSE are the ones that need to be gone.

I think there should be an age limit on administering the death penalty. I used to think that anyone - regardless of age - should die if they took another's life, but then I read a lot of studies on children's and teen's minds. They don't process consequences the same, and they act more on impulse without rationalization first. Why punish them so severely for something they can't really prevent (in a sense)? They don't look at "If I kill this person pissing me off right now, then they will be lost to their family and friends, and I will pay with my life." They only look at "I want them dead for what they did to me!" - even if that action was due to taking a notebook and reading personal info out of it. Hardly something to murder someone over, though at the time it feels like it is.

I think that the society is as safe as the society makes it. People in Syria are very influenced by their religion, and live their lives that way. The people here in the US are all for instant gratification, following the path WE see as the right one, and are much more selfish with our lives and our things. For our level of crime to change, it has to start with the society itself. And it is a change that I personally don't think our society is willing to make.

Answer 4

I am opposed to the death penalty. I personally don't think we have the right to take another life. However, hypothetically, I think that if the death penalty were swift it would deter a lot of violent crimes. I can see the point (I don't necessairly agree with it) that making an example of a few would deter many others. (Seriously, these days prison isn't that bad...food, medical & dental, cable tv, further your education, etc. Much better than life on the street. I lean more toward doing away with prisoner "rights". I think that once you commit a crime against another person, your forefit your rights. I think prisoners should only have the very basic necessities. I think that would be a deterent.) Anyway, point is, it makes sense when you think about it, agree or not. If you see some one cut off a thief's hand, you're going to think twice about stealing.

Answer 5

Our Country is now run by Lawyers - most of them are vultures in that they will attach themselves to anything that gets them $$$$. Yes, the appeals process is part of the problem. The other is perception - people here try to personalize everything like "what if that was your brother?" . Our Criminal Justice system needs an overhaul. One must be found guilty by a jury of his peers...when's the last time you saw a jury containing anything but unemployed or retired people on it? If I'm convicted of a crime and there is to be a trial by jury, I deserve a jury of people of like educational background. The jurist should be paid more than their regular work wage, or a dollar amount that will justify sitting on a jury - All people do now is lie to get out of it so they don't lose $$$ or piss off their boss. Make being on a jury desireable and better people will sit and deliberate the fate of individuals.

The other problem is Judges. Most of them do not do their job regarding the other offenses. I have literally been in court when 3 guys accused of a drive-by shooting of a home and 3 cars were set free after 30 days. They were found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, but the judge didn't like the attempted murder charge (though there was malice aforethought) so he tossed it out. These guys were back on the street within 40 days of their crime and with no change in conscience or adjustment in decision making - they were dealing drugs and shooting each other again. These guys beat 2 people nearly to death in a home invasion less than a year after they were let out. If a Judge did their job, these guys would have been in jail, not pulling a home invasion. You can't tell me this doesn't happen on the capital punishment issue.

Answer 6

I think all child molesters should be put to sleep! I am aware that would eliminate a big portion of the human race, but think about it, everyone left would be so scared they probably wouldn't do it. As for everyone else, if they committed the crime, are found guilty and are afraid of dying then I think they should be put to sleep. Let them feel the fear of dying just like their victims. If they are ready to die then I think we should keep them alive in jail. And when I say jail, I mean one meal a day, no t.v., no air conditioning, no gyms (only to make them bigger! That's stupid), no privileges AT ALL. Prisoners sometimes say, "they treat us like animals", well I think if they didn't act like animals they wouldn't be in there in the first place. I think they should work but only to pay for their clothes, food, facility expenses, and pay a small portion everyday to the victims or their families. That way everyday they are reminded of why they are in there! I do think the payment should go to a bank account where the victims are not reminded daily of the experience. That way they can deal with it on their own when they are ready. I really do agree the only time they should use the death penalty is when they know for sure they committed the crime. As for criminals who really didn't physically hurt anyone I think they should put them in a jail away from the hard-core criminals, but I still think they should work for everything.

Answer 7

Your question and detail is kind of hard to read and understand. I think that the death penalty should only be imposed on those that have very hard evidence against them. So many people are being tried and convicted on pure coincidental evidence and serving time for crimes that they did not commit.

Answer 8

The death penalty is just legalized murder..... No one has the right to take anothers life; not the thug on the street nor the county, state or government.

Answer 9

I don't believe that anyone has a right to kill another human being. So I don't advocate the death penalty in any society for any reason.

Answer 10

YEs the appeals take years. The average is 12. I do believe in the death penalty but I do not think it deters anyone as it takes so long to execute someone that they usually die of old age first.