What are your thoughts of the death penality?

Question

I am for it in the right circumstances. Who wants to pay more taxes for killers.

Answer 1

We actually pay a lot more taxes for killers to keep them on death row, believe it or not, because of the appeals process and the extra costs related to death row in general. It has been shown time and again that keeping them in prison for life would be far cheaper for the taxpayers than the execution process.

I am against the death penalty. If killing these people would bring their victims back from the dead, I'd be all for it, but killing them solves nothing.

And, for the record, I have had a loved one murdered. And I am still against the death penalty.

Answer 2

It would be a good thing, if the system wasn't so screwed up.

Appeals processes typically run 10-15 years, sometimes even longer. All that time our taxes are feeding and bedding them. Our taxes are also being spent on their appeals. The typical death row inmate is broke, so obviously he can't afford an attorney. It's either court appointed (our taxes used) or volunteered (in which case our taxes still pay for court time, judges time, defense attorney/DA/what have you.)
We're basically not getting any break on our tax dollars by executing them. The theory is nice, the reality completely different, the system is a disaster.

Answer 3

Under the current system it costs far more to impose the death penalty than life without parole. Just think of all the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and ancillary staff that must be paid out of public funds to file, defend, and decide all the appeals. To really change the way it works would require constitutional amendments taking away rights. Why not just make every prisoner provide enough labor to justify the expense of heir incarceration? If they have no skills, then have them make little rocks out of big rocks, we always need gravel. The certainty of hard labor would be a far bigger deterent for crime than the death penalty.

Answer 4

If there is reasonable doubt, or even unreasonable doubt, about the guilt of the person in question, then don't sentence them to death.

If there is a credible eyewitness, or multiple eyewitnesses, or dna evidence, or videotape, then fry 'em! Screw appeals. It there is NO reasonable doubt, that's it. And yes, I know executing violent criminals won't bring back the victim, but the criminals won't get to kill somebody else, will they?

There is not possible way that it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them alive for 25 years. A bullet costs about 10 cents. Take them out and shoot them. That's what they do in other countries and those countries don't have a fraction of the crime rate that they do here.

Answer 5

I don't think that the death penalty should be completely abolished.

However, there are many reasons why its current usage is atrocious.

First of all, it unfairly targets people of color far too often. Even taking into account that minorities tend to committ more crimes because of their socioeconomic background, white are rarely given the death penalty when committing the same crime. There are exceptions, but for the most part, race is a key factor in whether you are given the death penalty.

2nd, the argument that it saves taxpayers money is far from the truth. Because of all of the appeals that are associated with the death penalty, the costs involved in a death penalty case are as high as putting them in prison for life. It would seem that it would be the cheaper solution, but it really isn't. That doesn't mean that appeals should be limited, but we need to keep in mind that it's not a cheaper route to life in prison. And you shouldn't limit the appeals because:

Thirdly... The have been WAY WAY to many cases of people being put on death row, only to be aquitted by new DNA evidence 20 years later. Not only are poor people of color being put on death row far too often, they turn out to be innocent on way too many occasions, but we sentenced by either racists juries, racist prosecutors, or just shoddy police/defense work. Until we are able to avoid the number of mistakes involved with the death penalty senstencing, then we should get away from using it.

The death penalty should also only be used for the most heinous of crimes. Not for every murderer who kills a kid or old lady should get the death penalty. Part of the problem with how we administer it is that we give it to anyone. If we gave it out less often, made sure the people actually committed the crime, and ensured that it was equally used in all cases (regardless of the criminal's background), then I would be in favor of it.

Answer 6

I'm with you! It cost a lot of money to keep inmates in prison. If found guilty of murder, they should be given 10 years in prison (in case they are proven innocent after new evidence,etc.) and then sent to death. That is all they deserve anyway after killing someone. Especially the ones wothout appeal, should be sent automatically to the chair. Also I think they live like kings, for someone lazy, what more do you want. they shower anyway, they eat and they work out everyday. Prison are all about gangs anyway. They kill eachother as soon as they get a chance, it's some sort of game for them. I simply hate the system right now. It's a big waste of money. They should take that money to try to give medical insurrance to all instead of giving the money to feed criminals.

Answer 7

Killing a killer to save money is all well and good but its when you kill an innocent person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time,
incase you havent heard of him you might want to research derek bentley.
His case will show what i mean.

Answer 8

"An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"

On another point - one of the reasons why many countries did away with the death penalty is that juries are less likely to convict if they think the guy is going to die.

Answer 9

I'm against it because I think it dehumanizes us as a society and doesn't make us any safer. If someone can show me a study that shows that it's a deterrent to violent crime then I might reexamine my position. If it's not a deterrent then it's just a tool for state sponsored revenge.

Answer 10

The death penalty isnt' as bad as it should be. They just give them a little shot and it's over. What about all the pain they caused the person they killed? It should definetely be more painful. =D [ok now i sound all evil]