2007-05-07 16:36:15 · 11 answers · asked by lukas 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The reasons to oppose it include the practical problems with the system. You have received some very informed answers. However, one answer (from cowboyfestus) ignores the fact that life without parole is now available in 48 states. It means what it says, it is sure and swift (necessary for a punishment to act as a deterrent) and costs much less than the death penalty.
Other things to keep in mind: DNA has shown many people on death row to be innocent. However, DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and is not a guarantee we will not execute an innocent person.
The death penalty can be hard on families of homicide victims. 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.
The death penalty is not reserved for the "worst of the worst" but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When was the last time a wealthy person faced execution or even came close?
To all the people who say the process should be speeded up:
Of the 123 people released from death row with evidence of their innocence, many had already served a decade or more. If the process were speeded up we would certainly execute an innocent person.
2007-05-09 04:37:34 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The usual argument is "why should we pay to house them, as tax payers?"
Cost of maintaining an inmate is only about $30,000 to $50,000 per year depending on the state. Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment. Not to mention the team of doctors that must carry it out and all the other cost associated with it. It is actually more expensive to kill someone. With at least 2 lawyers mandatory for most death penalty case, and appeals that go for years it becomes more expensive to kill someone than keep them in prison. also, every month you see people exonerated by DNA evidence and they were on death row. Statistics show that 10% of inmates on death row are innocent, and leads you to believe that we have therefore executed innocent people. There is in all states "Life without the possibility of Parole" which means that inmate will NEVER interact with society again. IF there is even the possiblity of killing and innocent person, don't you think that is grounds enough for a moratroium on the death Penalty? And are we to teach people it is wrong to kill by killing people. The CNN article just came out. If you still believe in the Death P. after that, then haven't you become the same monster you wish to destroy? Do we really want to compare the value of building a prison to a human life? So how much is person worth now days? Dangerous ground we are on. We can't start putting dollar signs on human life. Its immoral and unethical.
We are the last truly democratic industrialized country that still has the death penalty.
2007-05-07 16:52:50 · answer #2 · answered by Myles D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally don't agree with the ending of human life except in self defense, in any capacity.
I believe har labor would be a much better disciplinary method.
That way, if someone was wrongly convicted, and the justice system discovers that after the sentence has been carried out, you can make some amends by paying the guy a bunch of money. It's a lousy way to spend that amount of your life, but at least he's still alive.
2007-05-07 16:50:45 · answer #3 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Human justice is fallible and can be very unfair for many reasons. Human beings are often too irrational, illogical and biased in their judgments. Accordingly, if capital punishment is carried out, there can be no possibility for due remedy if subsequent proofs, for example, new DNA results, indicate that the person was innocent and was unfairly executed.
2007-05-07 16:54:18 · answer #4 · answered by care to listen? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's barbaric, disgusting, and uncivilized.
It's done in a cruel way.
The state often murders the wrong person.
It's unfairly applied. (That is, whether it's used is based on a whole bunch of things entirely irrelevant to the severity of the crime.)
It precludes learning how to turn criminals around, or learn more about them.
BTW, one of the two people who knew who the third guy responsible for the OK City bombing was killed by the state.
Thereby halving our chances of knowing his identity.
I call that dumb.
2007-05-07 17:14:17 · answer #5 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Thou shall not kill"
Aside from a Commandment of God, with too many candidates for capital punishment, how the hell will we bury them?
2007-05-07 16:46:24 · answer #6 · answered by joey409 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The cons are....once in awhile they have the wrong man. Can't bring a dead man back.
2007-05-07 16:47:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can bet they wont get out and commit the same crime twice and they dont get free room and board the rest of their lives.So the only thing i see is pros.I dont see any cons
2007-05-07 16:49:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The price and the possibility of innocence.
2007-05-07 16:47:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
accidentally killing an innocent person
teaching people that killing is wrong by killing those who kill
2007-05-07 16:47:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋