Is it time for a return to the death penalty.?

Question

Firstly can I say loud and clear I am not a person who is generally prone to extremes in anything, however I am starting to think that it is now time to return to the death Penalty for certain crimes.
Specifically those sick evil bastards that abduct, molest and murder children.
With the improvements now made in DNA evidance etc the possabilities for a innocent person to be convicted are very slim.
Why should this filth be released back into the community often only to offend again.
Don't we owe it to our children to ensure that once caught they are prevented from ever re-offending again ?
The horrors that these poor kids must go through does not bare thinking about ? Don,t these beasts deserve to be killed ?
I feel that with lots and lots of other crimes rehab is a valid option, but not for this scum, they pose to much of a danger and are, in my opinon, never really cured.
Our children are the most precious people in our world, they have the absolute right to be protected.

Answer 1

I am guessing that you do not live in the United States.
Here is some information about the American experience with DNA and the death penalty sytem in the USA, with sources listed below.

First of all, of the 200 people released from prison (including 123 from death row) some of those who had been convicted of rape or sexual abuse, had been mistakenly identified by the (adult) victim. Police investigation techniques contributed to this. Some of these people were coerced or manipulated into confessing to crimes they did not commit.

The death penalty risks executing innocent people (123 already exonerated).

DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Life without parole is now an available sentence in 48 (of 50) states. It means what it says. Opposing the death penalty does not mean you want the worst criminals to be released. Ever.

No reputable study has shown the death penalty to be a deterrent. In fact, homicide rates are higher in states with the death penalty.

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.

The death penalty can be very hard on families of murder victims. Many 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.

Several murder victim family members who supported the death penalty have testified that death sentences caused them more pain due to the endless appeals and constant press coverage. They came to feel that abolishing the death penalty was in the interest of murder victim family members

The death penalty does not apply to the worst of the worst. It applies to defendants with the worst lawyers.

The death penatly costs much more than life sentences.

Answer 2

It was understandable that the death penalty was abolished. It was done at a time when crime was only a fraction of what it is today. The fact that the odd miscarriage of justice meant the death of an innocent person was taken was a compelling reason for the abolition and it was brought about by the usual short-sightedness of politicians against the wishes of the population.

As a direct result of that abolition the act of murder has now risen to an unacceptably high level and the time is now ripe for the return of the death penalty. For the reasons that you have described the likelihood of miscarriages of justice has become almost eliminated.

If the death penalty had not been abolished one wonders on how many murder victims would be alive today.

Answer 3

Regardless of why you or anyone else thinks it should return. I believe in the saying "An eye for an eye", I am also aware of the expression "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" Personally, I would rather be blind, then at risk from a criminal who could have been exterminated like the vermin they are, who could do any number of things to me, or people I know.

I think the death penalty should be re-instated, but ONLY in cases where it is deserved. For example, A child molester should have his penis removed and a medical device put in its place, a theif should be forced to repay twice what he or she stole, And a murderer, should be killed, if they beat someome to death, they themselfs should be beaten to near death, then brought back, then killed.

The only way to stop crime is to make an example. The death penalty was created to create a example of people and what will NOT be accepted in society. If you live by an eye for an eye, examples are vast, and because each punishment is dictated by the crime, there is NO reason to refuse the punishment on the grounds thats its too severe.

Answer 4

I agree that certain crimes should be considered for capital punishment. Murder, Rape, Sexual assault of a child; all good candidates. The caution here is that the death penalty be applied to crimes that are so hanous in nature that the average person would see it as such a depravity that the offender needs to be removed from society or in a case where the offender is clearly outside the probabilities for reform.

The problem with we need to do it "for our children" is that the politicians have wore out that excuse on everything from bond issues, legalizing lottery and other gaming to ending the war. Get away from the catch phrase that people have learned to ignore. Make it for a better society for all the law abiding citizens that believe there are certain standards of society that must not be breached. The three strike policy is OK for some crimes, but for others, its two strikes too many.

Also, there should be no such sentence as life without the possibility of parole. If society has determined that this person is beyond reform, give him five years in solitaire (so he can have his rights to appeal and not further corrupt lessor offenders) and then execute him. If he is not reformable, then why is society going to provide room, board and health care for this person for 30 to 50 years.

Lastly, in general, prisoners shouldn't be getting better health care than our senior citizens that have actually made contributions TO society instead of merely taking FROM society, they should not be getting a college education at taxpayers expense as a perk of being a criminal and their standard of living should not be higher than our men and women serving in the military. Recreation rooms, weight rooms, libraries and conjugal visits are wastes of our money.

Answer 5

Absolutely. Our ancestors believed in the death penalty for lots of stuff. They knew how to deal with human preditors.

Let's at least have an automatic death penalty for:
1) Murder
2) Child molestation
3) Rape
4) Thievery
5) Organized crime of any kind.
6) Repeat offenders. Three strikes and you're dead.
7) Treason
8) Desertion from the armed services.

Our world would be so much safer and more pleasant without the people who prey upon other people.

Answer 6

Are you British? Because you cannot have the death penalty in Britain - it is against European law. No amount of kicking and screaming will EVER get that changed. Even if the BNP came to power (the only party who advocate the death penalty) they would firstly have to leave they EU before the could reinstate it.

Personally I believe life in prison is a worse punishment. It's effectively a death which lasts 40 (or whatever) years. They spend the rest of their lives in prison where child abusers receive an especially bad time, they are never released and then they die at the end of it anyway. Even with DNA evidence it is still VASTLY more expensive to execute prisoners than it is to keep them incarcerated because of all the legal time it takes up. You cannot simply take someone from the courtroom and put them against a wall - not even in the US. There are YEARS of appeals and reappraisals of evidence - at huge cost to the taxpayer.

Far better to make life LIFE for them.

Answer 7

When there is absolutely no doubt (e.g. Huntley, Sutcliffe, Brady), then yes. Where doubt is present, then the sentence should be life, until the evidence either proves or disproves their guilt.

The other caveat would be mitigating circumstances, e.g. ACCIDENTALLY ran into someone who abused them as a child, and killed them in rage: they should still face a heavy prison sentence, but the death penalty in such cases is inappropriate. NB: if they deliberately look for them, then that should be regarded as premeditated and would thus deserve the death penalty.

Answer 8

if a sick bastard takes a persons life away he must pay by forfeiting his life but as it stands he will have 4 meals a day and see the sun which his victim never will again The dogooders will have an argument with this the stupid idiots<><><>the death penalty should never have been shelved so bring it back tomorrow it cant be soon enough

Answer 9

area of minimizing crime oftentimes is the returning of the so observed as "demise Penalty" in spite of the indisputable fact that it is not the only answer to it. There are international places that haven't got the "demise Penalty regulation" and yet they don't look having a lot situation about crime fee. it really is the right implementation of the regulation, the vigilance of its human beings(kasama ka dun) and the cooperation of the community. that oftentimes is the significant answer in fixing our increasing crime fee. i ought to particularly see the offender rot in reformatory than to die in an electric powered chair or injection. demise is way sweet for far of those folk. As on your PGMA remark, i don't believe of so. She ought to or maybe no longer be responsible, we do not understand. and that i don't believe of that you've any acceptable to say that to someone. ought to he/she be the chief of a rustic or an insignificant chippie. ------ "substitute starts with the persons, no longer with the chief. If all you do is "ngawa ng ngawa wala namang ginagawa" then you definitely more effective close your mouth." the rationalization why this united states isn't attending to its destination is because there are some those who consistently ***** about an incompetent chief yet under no circumstances quite finished his/her area as a citizen. we will, sidestep dropping complaining/rallying/etc and ranting. walk the talk

Answer 10

The argument against capital punishment has always been about the mistakes that have been made in the past and the do gooders will real them of at the drop of a hat. What has,nt been brought up is you won,t have mistakes with D.N.A. testing. You will be shoure of a watter tight conviction.