Describe the death penalty and why it is significant and what would be an argument both for and against?

Question

Have at least 2 contentions for and against

Answer 1

The death penalty punishes certain convicted criminals by killing them. In the US at this time, the death penalty is generally reserved for people who have committed murder in a particularly reprehensible way.
Arguments for:
1) The death penalty serves as a general deterrent to crime; people will not commit the crime for fear of the death penalty.
2) It serves as a specific deterrent; if the person is dead, he'll never kill again.
3) It shows that we value human life so highly that, in egregious cases of murder, we believe the murderer doesn't deserve to live after the way he has taken the life of others.
Arguments against:
1) With the appeals process the way it is in the US, it is cheaper to keep a person in prison for the rest of his life than to pay for all the appeals. Since his life is at stake, the taxpayers have to pay for the appeals if the convict doesn't have the money, which he never seems to.
2) Even a murderer deserves a chance to reform his life, even in the limited circumstances of prison.
3) Killing a murderer shows that we do not place a high enough value on human life; the fact that a person causes us a problem is not a reason to kill him/her.

Answer 2

Here are some facts about the death penalty system. These are practical facts (all with sources listed below) and all arguing against the death penalty as ineffective for preventing or reducing crime. This is in the form of questions and answers.

Isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison. Much of the extra costs is due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not. Most killers don't think about the consequences anyway. They do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Supermax prisons are terrible places to spend the rest of your life. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

What about the very worst crimes?
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??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Many of the 123 innocent people released from death row had already been there for over 2 decades. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole.

Answer 3

I have mixed feelings about this. If a person confesses or is caught in the act of murder, then yes, I do think that there should be a death penalty. However, these people will sit on death row for years which cost us hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars. Stays of executions, appeals etc should not be allowed to those that we definitely know committed the crime and the sentence should be carried out in a timely manner.
However, on the other hand, there have been those that go to trial and are convicted of a crime that they did not commit. Have heard/seen it so many times on the news where someone will spend 30 years in prison and someone else admits to the crime, or DNA evidence proves otherwise.
So my bottom line, if they admit or are caught, the heck with them, they did it and deserve to face the actions. Those that are questionable makes it hard for me to say execute, some that say that they are innocent really are.

Answer 4

To countries like the US which claim to be "civilized" and yet still have the death penalty on their statute books, I would simply like to say: make this barbaric form of retributive punishment history; it does not befit our 21st century civilization. When was the last time a rich person was sentenced to death in the US, let alone executed?? It is only poor and disadvantaged people who cannot afford to hire good lawyers who suffer this cruel fate. The death penalty solves NOTHING. Check the statistics. States in the US which have abolished the death penalty actually have lower murder rates than those which still retain them. Why execute someone who has been kept in prison for twenty years and who still maintains his/her innocence of murder? The death penalty is no longer tenable in our present state of civilization and the earlier the US follows progressive EU in assigning it to history, the better for all mankind.

Answer 5

For:
A society has the right to punish offenders to the extent it deems appropriate.
Harsh penalties such as a death sentence act as a strong deterrent to crime.
The risk of recidivism for some offenses outweighs any chances for reform. A death sentence is the most effective way to ensure no recidivism.
Those who commit aggregous offenses do not deserve the massive waste of resources nessecary for life incarceration.

Against:
A society which values life should not impose death upon it's citizens for any reason.
The majority of capital offenses are not of the nature of be deterred by any punishment.
No legal system is perfect, inevitabley innocent people will be put to death.
Life incarceration is as effective a means to ensure non-recidivism.

Answer 6

the death penalty is imposed for capital offenses such as murder and not every state has this penalty on it's books.

in my opinion, the death penalty serves not as a deterrent to crime, but as a stark reminder that certain crimes will not and should not be tolerated by civilized people. those who commit these crimes lose their right to be among the citizens and are removed permanently from them.

the only problem is making absolutely certain you have the correct individual so that innocent people are not wrongly killed by the state. dna technology is making that much easier and is conclusive.

it is imperative that this option is kept available to judges and prosecutors becuase certain individuals can never be rehabilitated and capital offenders do not even deserve the chance.

Answer 7

It makes a potential murderer think twice.