Death penalty?

Question

Should the death penalty be abolished?

Should the death penalty be abolished? Why or why not?

Answer 1

I think that you can answer this one for yourself once you have the facts, letting common sense do the rest. Here are a few facts, all verifiable and sourced-

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having 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 the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It’s 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 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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. 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.

Answer 2

No.

There should be a fast-track lane for some of the violent offenders out there. Fast track them, allow them one appeal--just to make sure the lower court gave them a fair trial-- and then wham, bam thank you ma'am- toast 'em!

It's the same circumstance as when a rabid or dangerous dog is euthanized-- to protect society. I don't view the death penalty as vengeance (I can say this because I have not been touched by some personal tragedy that may change my view on this.), but I do see it as eliminating dangerous individuals from society-permanently.

Answer 3

I believe it should be. It is well known that the death penalty is not a very effective deterrent to other criminals. In some cases, crime rates have actually been seen to rise after an execution! Furthermore, by taking out our vengence on murderers, we all start to sink down to their level. Killing the killer doesn't make the pain and anger go away for the victim's family and friends. I am all for making these people pay for what they have done. But instead of the death penalty, I believe what we need to do is overhaul our justice system so that the most dangerous/likely to re-offend criminals are truly put away for life (none of this chance for parole or "life sentence" equalling 25 years). No hotel suite cells or university degrees either - prisoners should be entitled to just the basics of food, shelter, and decent (not special) treatment (no abuse). Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, not an appealing place! Along this line, prisoners should have to work hard too, and help to earn their keep, not just sit around it their cells. Work camps/programs should be set up in all prisons, with the profits going towards paying for prison upkeep as well as to womens' shelters/victim or family counselling/youth programs (whatever is appropriate for the crimes that these people have commited).

By keeping these criminals imprisoned, rather than killing them, we can make them pay more and for longer, for the harm they've done. Provided that sentencing is just, prisons are not hotels and that prisoners work hard and don't get special treatment, prison will become a place that criminals don't want to be. In many cases, long term inprisonment in max-security condititions for a criminal is also actually far cheaper than killing them. In the U.S., keeping someone for any length of time on death row is incredibly expensive, and so are the multiple appeals and other legal processes involved in one death penalty sentence. It is actually far cheaper to keep them in prison for their entire lives!

Another thought - no present justice system (especially that of the U.S. or Canada) is foolproof and free of prejudices. It seems rather interesting that in the U.S., non-white criminals have a much greater chance of being sentenced to death, as well as to have their later appeals rejected. Where you have the death penalty, you will always have the possibility (however common or uncommon) of innocent people mistakenly being inprisoned and killed. If it is abolished, then the last of these horrors, at least, can be removed.

I used to be a supporter of the death penalty, before doing more research and realizing that many of my arguments for it were either invalid or questionable. One of the books that really opened my eyes was Dead Man Walking, actually written by a nun who worked with death row inmates. I strongly suggest it to anyone interested in the death penalty debate.

Answer 4

The death penalty should remain as punishment for willfully taking a life, plain and simple. Think of it this way, please: If you would find yourself in the position that you going to go kill another person for whatever reason, what does that make you? You could say "It makes me God" or "It makes me the Devil" or something like that. I think it makes you say to society that you have no respect for life, that you place the lives of others below such things as material gain, your own drug addiction, whatever. We are creatures with the capability to make "right or wrong" decisions, but when one of loses that capability, they become the same as a rabid dog or mad cow, and must be put down.

Answer 5

A case going on in BC Robert Picton on trial for killing as many as 75 women he is a pig farmer dont ask where the bodies went. This trial will last a year. Would you hire this guy/ he will be put into a cell no windows for 23 hours a day. it wil cost millions to keep him and others alive.i also feel 2nd conviction foe violent crimes Game over

Answer 6

Of course it should be abolished. Most civilized countries have abolished it and it is woefully embarrasing that some still haven't. You simply cannot give a government the power to take away the lives of its citizens. Governments are run by public officers who, like anyone else, can and will make mistakes.

You think trials are fail proof? Well, think again. I wholeheartedly recommend you check out the following link: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

One death due to a mistaken conviction is one death too many.

Answer 7

it should stay and it should not take the years that it does to execute them. There are those that say it's not a deterrent to crime well i say it is so let's rid the world of these idiots and just forget them now the in remembrance stuff well let's see when was the last time you thought about ''Tookie'' convected killer i bet he has not crossed your mind.

Answer 8

Only when you can abolish all of the murderers.

Answer 9

I think the real question is whether it deters crime or not. In countries that have abolished capital punishment, the crimerate is lower than those who still have it. So, yes, it should be abolished. Not only that, it is cheaper to house an inmate for his whole life rather than executing the criminal.

Answer 10

absolutely not! It should be made cheaper by using a rope to kill a larger number of people then people wouldn't have the argument that it costs less to house feed and cloth inmates the rest of their lives... we could also use inmates as test subjects to further humanity...