death penalty?

Question

Having read several other questions, i am interested on hearing your views on the death penalty. I am from the UK but have been living in france for years, and this is a very 'social' place (rehab for offenders, etc etc). The death penalty here is seen as totally unheard of to mention (bad vibes if you even mention it- probably something to do with the guillotine i dunno) but i wondered if on the whole the British public are for this penalty or against it.
morbid subject i know, but i am very interested in the comparison

Answer 1

The only down side to the death penalty is;

What if you execute the wrong person?

What do you say to the family of that person when you tell them you executed their son or daughter in error?

I don't really know how much of a deterrent the death penalty would be. What I do believe is that life imprisonment should mean life and that when you are convicted of a crime you relinquish all your human rights during the you time in prison.

Answer 2

I agree with the death penalty. I understand why they don't do it though (people found innocent years after the fact), but if there was absolutely NO doubt whatsoever that A had murdered B in cold blood, then......). I also think though that prisons should be like they were years ago - NO tv, NO comfy beds, hard graft during the day, NO internet etc..... if they want these things, they should be earned after a period of time perhaps or something. If someone kills another, they have taken away not only the victims 'human rights' but also their own as they have acted as less than human. There are SO many facets to this discussion, and some of my own opinions even change under different circumstances.......but on the whole, the justice system is TOOOOOO soft these days!

Answer 3

I am against the death penalty. Aside from the obvious problems with justice sometimes convicting the wrong person so if they have been hanged, for example, and they are innocent, somehow a posthumous pardon isn't enough. No justice system is perfect.

There is the argument regarding what does it achieve? Is it so that the victim or their family feel better or is it to act as a deterrent? If it is to act as a deterrent, it's not a very good one. Look at US states which still have the death penalty. If it was a deterrent, there would be no one on death row. The type of person that commits a heinous crime warranting the death penalty doesn't think, 'Oh, wait a minute, I'll be electrocuted if I commit this crime. Let's not do it'; they surge ahead regardless of the consequences for anyone including themselves.

Some such criminals welcome the death penalty as they want to be seen as martyrs. Wouldn't it therefore be much more of a punishment for them to rot slowly in solitary confinement in some prison somewhere than a quick exit and their name in the media?

Perhaps the argument should be that there should be tougher sentences for serious crimes and worse conditions whilst you are in there rather than an exit in a blaze of glory and the risk that the wrong man has been executed.

Answer 4

The American experience with the death penalty has been riddled with practical problems. Here are answers to some of the questions often asked about 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 5

look at jeremy bamber. served 20 years for 5 murders and people are still wondering if he did the crimes. if he was put to death and then he was found to be inoccent, it would be too late.
on the other hand, sentences are far too soft. a prisioner may serve 5 or 6 months of a year sentence. they get a gym, sky tv, pool tables etc and drugs are more available on the inside. people who will never be realised, yorkshire ripper, could be put to death. 100 grand a year to keep that t@sser inside. we`ve had dna for years now, use it. im up for using it when the person is 100% guilty.

Answer 6

As much as I sometimes personally wish someone would just drop dead for the sake of humanity, the death penalty is really all about revenge and not justice.
If we as a country or indeed the human race, claim or want to aspire to being 'civilised', then how can we justify taking a human life when not for self defence.
I will always oppose the death penalty as I believe that taking a life as a punishment for taking a life makes us no better than the criminal, just smugger!

Slim from UK.

Answer 7

people need to fear something, nobody fears a a few months at bultins in Brixton, 3 meals a day, free pyjamas, no work, and all the drugs you could possibly want.

I´m all for the death sentance but it should be reserved for the most heanous crimes murder in the first paedophilia etc

Prisoners should also be exempt from human rights laws, made to work on chain gangs under armed supervision to help repay thier debt to society

Have a star

Answer 8

Yes. Should be brought back. There is no detterent any more. Life should mean life. Most murderers seem to be released from prison after 12+ years after being sentence to life. What kind of sentence is that? Inside prison they live the life of luxury far beyond that which people live outside, they even study for degrees!! Who is going to employ them? If they are released, they should work for the community and pay back something to society.

The families that are left after their loved one has been murdered have to live with the loss forever, the perpetrator forgets and gets away scott free.

A life for a life.

Answer 9

I think that if there is no don't that someone is a murderer or a sex offender, i.e. they admit it or there is witnesses or unbreakable proof, then they should receive the death penalty. It was cut overcrowding and costs of keeping prisons for years.

Answer 10

I am against the death penalty. My reason's have already been covered by other answers here. I think toto_lacoste, in particular, argues against the death penalty very effectively.