Capital punishment.......?

Question

necessary or immoral....what's your take?

Answer 1

It depends on the crime. Sometimes it needs to be done if this person is at high risk for killing again, and they have no want or desire to change. I'm middle of the road when it comes to Capital Punishment especially since it has been documented that some innocent men have been put to death, and we must think of the victims as well and how it was immoral of the criminal to kill them. These issues must be evenly weighed, but people are always at one extreme or another when it comes to this issue. There were people who freaked when Saddam Hussein was put to death they said "how dare they play God and choose who is to live and who is to die", but what would he have done if he were kept alive?

Answer 2

I leave it to others to write about the morality of it. Instead of an eye for an eye sound bite, here are answers to some questions often asked about the practical aspects of the death penalty system. The sources are listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 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. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison. Extra costs include those 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 and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

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 124 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.

Answer 3

Necessary.

Answer 4

Necessary, I think. But, again, I have never had anyone I know who was murdered or who murdered someone. I don't think you can actually know how you feel unless you are put in the situation of really having to decide because of a deed done that directly affects you. It's sort of like saying you like or dislike anything that you don't really know anything about.

Answer 5

i would not call it contradictory... specific, technically C.P is homicide; yet could the case be the legal killing of a murderer, that murderer could have conventional all alongside that committing the crime could bring about turn, in his very own dying. His sufferer could have had no such decision. In one in each and every of those subject, a killer who modern-day-mindedly kills does so determining his very own destiny. yet. i'm anti. There are continually exceptions to which persons could prefer to exempt a undeniable criminal. and there is often fake conviction. i think of that's too vast a determination to place upon different human beings, and too vast a legal top for human beings to have.

Answer 6

Only if you have irrefutable proof of their crime. There have been far too many miscarriages of justice that it would be worrying however. With a detterent like this (i.e. lashings in Singapore and some of the severe punishments in Saudi) it would certainly cut crime rates.

Answer 7

Based solely on the lack of competence that the institutions that are involved in prosecuting criminals, I would have to say no death penalty! Look at how many people that have been exonerated by DNA evidence in recent years!

Answer 8

Necessary and it shouldn't take so long either. If someone is found guilty, proven guilty and even confess to being guilty, why does it still take 10-20 years to put them to death?

Answer 9

Necessary. A necessary evil, true, but it is a good deterrent for crime and justice must be served.

Answer 10

it's immoral although child molesters should face capital punishment...