death row?

Question

do u think the death penalty is fair ? why or why not . Me personally i dont think it is fair or the right thing to do to solve a problem or to bring back people. like the 10 comandments states thou shalt not kill it didint say its ok to kill if ur killing a person who killed people .

Answer 1

"What kind of example is it for the government to kill and then tell the people not to?"

This is a chicken and egg solution. I look at it the opposite way: "Murderers are the first to kill, so the government is reasonable in giving them a taste of their own medicine."

I'm not Christian, but I must point out that in spite of "thou shalt not kill", EVERY Christian country practised the death penalty until the 20th century. Often, the punishment was completely out of proportion to the crime.

But do people deserve to die for killing another person? Absolutely. If anything, death by lethal injection (or long-drop hanging, even) is humane compared to some of the methods used by murderers.

And giving them a life sentence without parole is abosolutely meaningless. You're wasting your money, they're wasting their lives.

Some people say that the death penalty isn't very effective, as the US still has a higher crime rate compared to Europe.

True, but look at Singapore. Sometimes, a healthy fear works quite well. The reason why the death penalty isn't too effective in the US is because no sense of fear is attached to it... it's all sterilised, quiet, almost like euthanasia in a hospital. And sometimes, the death even seems like a relief after years of legal wrangling (most of which doesn't have anything to do with whether the chap is innocent or guilty!).

Re: The post below...

"Our appeals system is designed to make sure that the trial was in accord with constitutional standards."

That is my point. I couldn't care less about "constitutional standards". If the person can be proved guilty... no matter how the evidence was obtained/treated... then so be it. In my opinion, appeals should only be allowed on the basis of new evidence or new interpretations pointing to the innocence of the accused (or a lesser charge, at the very least).

Then and again, I'm not American (or European), so I have a very different mentality with regards to the rights of the accused. Indeed, I'm not even a fan of the US Constitution at all.

On the high cost of the death penalty compared to life imprisonment:

That, also, has to do with the way the process is carried out in the US... the endless "constitutional rights" appeals, 20-year-long waits, all the judicial wrangling.

If things were done the Singaporean way, then the death penalty would cost far less (in terms of money, time, and sweat).

Of course, countries like Saudi Arabia and China take things to an extreme, but Singapore and Taiwan are fairly decent models of judicial severity and efficiency.

Answer 2

I personally have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Although I believe that if someone kills a cop they have shown they have no regard for the law or people that defend it they should forfeit their lives. I can also understand using the death penalty for serial killers.
However the law is not perfect because it is administrated by humans. And one person being wrongfully put to death is to many.
So I guess I basically believe in the death penalty but don't think it should be used because there is the possibility of mistakes.

Answer 3

Here are a few solid facts about the death penalty- all are verifiable and sourced.

First, how it is unfair

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Many had already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person we are not likely to find that out and, also, the real criminal is still out there.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Appeals
Our appeals system is designed to make sure that the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

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
The system is racist but not in the way most people think. The death penalty is twice as likely to be sought in cases where the victim was white than where the victim was non white. (They key being the race of the victim.)

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.

And a couple of other facts-

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. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

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: cost (Clemens hsieh and dixl are wrong on this)
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not revenge or an eye for an eye mentality.

Answer 4

I can not see any reason to continue to support a person in prison who has absolutely no chance at parole. They are never going to be part of society again. So yes, put them to death. They are only waiting to die.

True the 10 commandments state "thou shall not kill", but the bible also states "He who kills a man shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:17 and "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall
be put to death." Exodus 21:12

Answer 5

No because it is irreversible and hypocritical. What kind of example is it for the government to kill and then tell the people not to? Prosecuters often times enrage juries and make them want revenge so bad that they will find anyone guilty so as not to have to prove their case.

Answer 6

Sure it is fair.

Some guy decides he wants to murder people at random, send him to Texas, and they'll fix his wagon.

Seriously. People that cannot live in society should move.

People that kill other members of society via murder, don't deserve to live, and are a menace and dangerous.