English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

I don't. The system has so many problems. Here are answers to some questions people ask about its practical problems. 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. (Note to Waterloo: This figure should be compared to the number of executions since 1976, 1066. It is about 11.6% of the number of executions since 1976- I think this is a high error rate- and who knows how many other innocent people are 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, largely because of the legal process. 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?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

2007-05-30 15:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0 0

For me, one of the most critical reasons for a punishment system is to act as a deterrent for future crimes. You want to make an example out of those who've done wrong and avoid others from doing the same. However, it seems that in the U.S., the deterrents are not effective. Do you see the crime rates going down?

Therefore, the purpose for capital punishment remains, I believe, just to provide some 'satisfaction' for the victim or the victim's families that justice was done. It is hard to say if that is right or wrong unless you've been a victim. It's not easy to imagine how you'd feel if it was you. I would be curious to know from someone who has witnessed an execution if it truly made them feel better about what had happened. I think (only think) that I would prefer them staying forever in prison then getting executed. Who knows? Maybe we're doing them a favor by killing them. The afterlife could be fantastic. But, we certainly know that being jail sucks.

I do agree though that mistakes in the justice system that result in wrongful punishment is mortifying. I do not know the statistics, but I would like to think this is by far the exception and not the rule.

2007-05-30 16:06:46 · answer #2 · answered by Waterloo 3 · 0 1

No. There are too many mistakes made in the justice system for such a final act. If killing is wrong, it applies to all killing except self defence. So technically excecution is wrong. I'm not saying I don't want murderers, rapists, child molesters and the like to be dead. I just don't think we can come up with a fool proof system to only kill the guilty ones and not accidently kill an innocent one.

2007-05-30 15:56:02 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 2

Absolutely.

2007-05-30 15:55:01 · answer #4 · answered by jh 6 · 1 0

Yes. Really, it needs to be swifter, more civilized, and more prolific in it's use of capital punishment.

2007-05-30 15:54:53 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 0

Yes and should be broadened to include child molesters, rapists and drug dealers. And murderers should be put to death in the same manner as their victims.

2007-05-30 16:05:09 · answer #6 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 1 0

Only if they can assure no more people are wrongly convicted, and sitting on death row. Sooner or later, they will execute an innocent person, and that is not justice.

2007-05-30 15:58:18 · answer #7 · answered by sweetie_baby 6 · 0 1

It needs to be used more often!

2007-05-30 15:56:15 · answer #8 · answered by pokeskickazzzz 3 · 3 0

we need more of and public executions

2007-05-30 15:58:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers