Many people obviously deserve to die. The problem is with our justice system. Most prosecutors don't care if the defendant committed the crime, only if he can be convicted for it. Poor people and people of color are disproportionally tried and convicted. With new DNA methods, hundred are being released from death row yearly. So, you have to figure statistically speaking how many must have died after being wrongfully convicted.
In Florida we have many prosecutors who lie and withhold evidence in order to convict innocent people. In Miami-Dade County a prosecutor stood up in court opposing the release of a proven innocent man. She told the judge, "The issue is not guilt or innocence". The issue was he had filed his appeal too early before a new law took effect allowing the DNA testing. He had his privately done.
People like George W. Bush sign death warrants (when he was gov) without regard to innocence or guilt.
jim h - Check your facts. It costs much more to execute someone that to incarcerate him for life. Millions more per criminal.
2007-04-29 12:52:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by lcmcpa 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Capital punishment is a poor answer to the social problems that underlie criminal activity not to mention that it does not deter crime. It is an unintelligent political knee jerk reaction to our failed attempt at implementing a long term strategy in eliminating and reducing crime. Far too many jobs depend on anti-social behaviour--police, courts, lawyers, social workers etc. etc. If we just took time to raise caring children we could go a long way at eliminating antisocial behaviour. The child you raise today that cares is the adult of tomorrow who won't off you for $20. Ah forget it, lets leave things as they are and pretend that it does not make a difference that we have children in our society that are: starving, neglected, abused, unloved, unwanted and as such by default socially engineered to become the criminals of tomorrow. Why? Well, if you believe in capital punishment then you believe that it is OK to have a disposable percentage of humanity. Killing them after the fact is better than trying to avoid the problem from the beginning. Heck, you can't get votes can you on a campaign that what you will do now will save lives in twenty years. A kill now campaign gets vote. Sad people, very sad.
2007-04-29 20:48:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Guit Man 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I oppose it because it is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime. You have received some good information already, but also some mistaken answers. This is an issue that should be decided on the basis of facts, not on quick sound bites. Here are some answers to questions that are often asked about the death penalty. The sources are listed below.
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. Americans are learning about the system and we are making up our minds based on facts, not eye for an eye sound bites.
2007-04-29 21:45:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It shouldn't be used, our justice system isn't perfect and it's inevitable that some innocent people will be falsely convicted and murdered.
Besides, spending the rest of ones life in prison is a far worse punishment than dying.
2007-04-29 19:43:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ashley 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am definitely in favor of it. I find it much better than sentencing a murderer to a lifetime of free food, free clothing, free laundry services, free medical and dental care, a free gym, free cable, free internet, and a list of other things that the law-abiding have to pay for (and have to do without if they cannot afford.) They also get to spend their days lounging, or playing football, etc. That does not sound like a lot of punishment to me.
As for people who say the prisoners do not have their freedom, watch any documentary, they learn to adjust.
Besides, even those that do get put to death have it better than the victims. The murderer gets a last meal. They get to say "good by" to their loved ones. They get a humane, painless death. Did the murder victim(s) get any of these? Nope.
2007-04-29 20:01:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Catnip 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm all for it. My ONLY objection to it is it takes so damn long. We could have more money in our states if we didn't have to house and feed these people for 20 years before they got the chair or needle. Not to mention how much money we would save on educating them to be lawyers, total gyms, satellite TV, etc. They are the ones taking up space that is needed for all the new ones going in. They ought to either be put to death inside of 5 years, or be sent to search for Osama. Whoever brings his head back on a silver platter gets a "Get out of jail free" card.
2007-04-30 06:32:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by sassynsweet1221 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
In favor and in cases where there is no doubt then they should have no appeals and be executed quickly. The way it is today a man on death row has a good chance of dying of old age before he exhausts all his appeals.
2007-04-29 19:43:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
We should have more of it . We spend more money today trying protect criminals and making sure that they have a " good quality of life" while in prison than we do on making sure they don't commit these crimes again.
2007-04-29 19:43:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by jim h 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
All pedophiles, death on 1st offense. Why should they get a 2nd chance to screw some other childs life up.
2007-04-29 19:42:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's cruel, unusual and it does not have any good effects as a deterrent to crime, nor does it give much solace to grieving families.
2007-04-29 19:45:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by kobacker59 6
·
3⤊
1⤋