English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-10 05:26:32 · 12 answers · asked by h@voc 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

12 answers

I think that once people have the facts about it, common sense can do the rest. Here are a few verifiable and sourced facts about the death penalty system.

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: 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 or an eye for an eye mentality.

2007-03-10 05:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1 1

I think we should use it on certain "leaders" in the Capitol and then outlaw its use on ordinary citizens.

It is completely barbaric...but I'm all for a two day blood fest on the Capitol mall featuring a Guillotine and any leader who lied about 9/11 and WMDs!!!

2007-03-10 14:00:53 · answer #2 · answered by Perry L 5 · 0 0

When my dad, uncle, brother and friends were in the military all the people they killed were just as innocent as the victims in any other kind of murder. What makes one more legal than another? If you don't believe me go to a gathering of combat veterans where they have reunions with former enemies. You'll see a lot of crying and a lot of condemnation of government leaders and you won't find one former enemy soldier on either side not forgiving the other side.

2007-03-10 13:44:48 · answer #3 · answered by Washington 2 · 1 1

Personally, I think it's always dangerous when the government has control over who lives and dies.

That being said, I think people subject to capitol punishment should have a choice. They can live the rest of their lives in prison, in solitary confinement, with no luxuries and no privileges, or they can choose to die.

2007-03-10 13:31:28 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 1

It's a glitch on our human rights record, it is unnecessary and expensive. Considering how long it takes to happen and the number of appeals it eats up a considerable larger number of tax dollars than simply keeping the person in jail for life.

2007-03-10 13:32:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I support it 100%. The only thing I would change is that while I agree anyone sentenced to die should have 1-appeal. If the appeal fails, they should be put to death within 30-days.

2007-03-10 14:43:05 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0 1

Good Question? Not for nothin? But I'd suggest that you ask those, who have had their Lives, turned around for the deeds of someone. Let THEM tell you how devastated, they've been, since it's happened. Then, wrote your findings, here. We'd love to see what you find out.

2007-03-10 13:33:22 · answer #7 · answered by Goggles 7 · 0 1

Right now, I'm for it. I "flip flop" back and forth. It gets me, though, how people can call themselves "pro-life" and be for the death penalty. I mean, either your "pro" life or you're not. You can't be "pro" some life and not others without looking like a huge hypocrite.

2007-03-10 13:31:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I am for it. If the crime is heinous then the person should be put to death for it. But I don't think that it should be only for murder charges. Repeat sexual offenders should be put to death as well. Why keep releasing these criminals just to devastate another persons life.

2007-03-10 13:38:19 · answer #9 · answered by heather d 2 · 1 2

I think those who get it never perform the crime again.

I think the judge and jury should have it as an option in heinous crimes and for recidivists in serious, violent crimes.

2007-03-10 13:31:49 · answer #10 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers