Life in prison without the possibility of parole vs. the death penalty?

Question

i'm against the death penalty and am curious to hear the arguments as to why putting someone to death no matter what the crime was is justifiable.

two main points. first, i think the criminal spending the rest of his life in prison is a worser punishment, keeping him locked up for 23 hours a day, than to put him to death. second, who are we to decide whether a person lives or dies. a jury chosen by our justice system has no right to decide a persons life.

another thing is, it's inevitable that a person is going to die eventually. i just think it's a better punishment to make the criminal spend the rest of their lives behind bars, no freedom, and then eventually they will die. why actually put the criminal to death when they are going to die anyways?

Answer 1

I agree that Life is a harsher sentence. Look how miserable we make ourselves throughout life, even with our freedom. Although, a sick individual whom we may have the opportunity to sentence to either life or death, may not get all out of prison what a normal person would. They might sit there and be miserable... but "see the light" and become healed, i don't think so. My real issue is PAROLE. Far too many inmates are paroled only to commit a second offense. Certain crimes, i.e. rape, murder, molestation, and many domestic violence issues should carry longer, if not, life sentences. These individuals are sick, they are not "fixable". No amount of time in prison, not a million repetitions of the Bible... nothing will help. Why do we let them out? As for life or death? who cares, as long as they're not free! Although the anti-DP case does make a good argument with the "wrongful conviction" issue.

Answer 2

Tom, I also have some problems with the death penalty. First off, there is no doubt that there is inequity in its application, even where several people are involved in the same crime and are all convicted of murder in the first degree. There are several cases that have come up where the person who pulled the trigger on someone, actually committing the killing, wound up with a life sentence, while someone else who didn't actually pull the trigger got the death penalty. To me, it seems that if you're going to make someone culpable unto death for a crime, then you have to make everyone involved in it culpable unto death-- especially the one who pulled the trigger.

There is also no doubt that how much money a person has to spend on their defense is a huge factor in determining if they get the death penalty. When you read about the absence of quality legal representation that some death-row inmates have had, it's sickening. There is absolutely no doubt that a person who can afford to pay for the best defense possible has a better chance at avoiding the death penalty than someone who is forced to rely on a public defender.

There is no one nationally-accepted standard for the death penalty. Some crimes will draw the death penalty in one state, while a virtually identical crime in another state avoids it.

The cost of the appeals and other legal issues associated with maintaining the death penalty sucks money away from programs that might lead to reductions in crime. I personally would rather spend money preventing murders and other crimes of violence, rather than paying money to punish people for crimes.

Okay, so that's the scoop on why I oppose the death penalty. But then we have situations like the murder of Danielle Van Dam by David Westerfield; the kidnapping and killing of Samantha Runnion by Alejandro Avila; and the murders committed by Joseph Duncan against the whole Groene family except for 8-year-old Shasta. I personally feel that Westerfield, Avila and Duncan are too "bent" to ever be redeemed or rehabilitated. No matter what conditions they are imprisoned under, no matter how long they are behind bars, they will always represent a danger to people. I do not feel any purpose is served by keeping them alive just to hold them in prison. I would "push the button" on them myself if I had the chance.

The only reason I can see why these abominations should be kept alive is to study them. If permissions was granted to do brain scans on them, test them in any way that the psychiatric community could figure out, do genetic profiles on them, whatever-- anything that could help to identify people with this kind of makeup BEFORE they do harm to others-- I would say that is reasonable.

Otherwise, I have no problem with putting them to death as rapidly as possible. JMO.

Answer 3

I am for the death penalty for a number of reasons. First, the idea of prison is rehabilitation. The prisoner spends x amount of time behind bars, sees the error of their ways, then rejoins society a changed person. If a person commits a crime so heinous there is no chance of them ever rejoining society (life w/o parole) then why bother with rehabilitation. Kill them, cut your losses, and move on.
Second is the financial aspect many have noted. If someone goes to prison for life at a young age, they could very well live for 40+ years on the taxpayers dime. I for one don't want to pay for an inmate to have cable and excercise equipment for 40 years.
Third, everyone keeps talking about the prisoner's right to life. What about the life of the victim? What was that worth? If someone hurt my daughter, I would want to see them dead - period paragraph. I honestly believe the death of the criminal is a fine offering to the memory of the victim and a sense of closure and vindication to the family left behind (in some cases).
Finally, someone who commits those crimes that are punishable by death (under US law - murder, rape, etc) to me are no longer categorized as human. They no longer deserve ANY rights, much less the right to draw breath.
My only issue with the death penalty is that it is too humane. Who cares if they feel pain? I hope they would. Plus, it's too costly. The amount of money spent on lethal injections, electric current, etc could be almost eliminated by the one-time purchase of a $10.00 length of rope. Use it over and over. When it wears out, $10.00 more gets you another one for a couple of years. More money saved to the state and federal budgets.
Weird thing is - I'm a liberal. Go figure.

Answer 4

From a financial point it is cheaper to have the convict serve life in prison than it is to execute the convicted person.

You can hear the arguments in Iowa about the death sentence, we in Iowa have a death sentence, it is called Life in Prison. In Iowa Life in prison is just that, a Life sentence in Iowa does not have the opportunity of parole or reduction, with the exception of have the sentence commuted by the governor and that is extremely rare.

Note: If you kill the convicted person, and later find out that there was an error or that exculpatory evidence was withheld by the state (I know that NEVER happens! Right?), you might find it a little hard to bring that innocent person back to life.

Answer 5

If I were ever given the choice of life without parole or the death penalty ... screw the procedures, just kill me now and get it over with!

I would not want to live in custody, EVER! Death would be a release for me, so I would want a "fast track" to the death chamber by what ever means, lethal injection firing squad, hanging, electrocution, sever my head from my body if you want! .. just don't fence me in!

Granted, my understanding of the penal system is second hand, I've never spent a single day behind bars (in front of them, YES! behind them ... NO! ... different bars, of course! The bars I was in front of served alcohol!)

It don't seem that bad, people going back for a second or even third (or fourth, fifth, sixth, one hundredth, etc) stay ... but it just ain't for me! Given the choice, I would choose death over incarceration for life!

Answer 6

I am against the death penalty but not for moral reasons. I do believe that killing can be justified in certain circumstances, I just don't feel that this is one of them.

1. There is always the possiblity of error.
2. In order to satisfy due process more money is spent trying them over and over again than is spent imprisoning them.
3. It does not offer anything in the way of prevention or deterrence.
4. There is no way to kill someone humanely.
5. What does it achieve? How does it fix anything? It does not equate to restitution in any way.

I just don't see the point in the death penalty. It is unnecessary.

Answer 7

because this person has committed the most hanous of crimes , did the victim get a trail ? , how about a appeal , , or for that matter did the victim even have a chance to speak .

the person about to be executed had all of those things ,

also , why should the tax payers have to pay for keeping a murdering scum alive ? i say you take them out shoot them in the back of the head and be done with it

Answer 8

I see your point I feel also that it is worse to have to spend the rest of your life in prison, instead of the easy way out, but you also have to think about that we are paying for them to be housed. I don't think there is an easy solution to that situation.

Answer 9

I agree with you as long as the method of death is so tame.

But, say you could take a rapist and rape him to death slowly over a week or two. That would be a more fitting death penalty.

Answer 10

Kill them. So my taxes don't go to feeding them.

If that person in line for the death penalty happens to kill someone. What gives that person the right to choose who lives and dies?????? It goes both ways.