Death penalty question?

Question

I'd just like your opinions on this..

Do you think that the death penalty is good policy? Why?

By good policy, I mean that it achieves positive results (benefits society) but is also practical and fair...?

Thanks!

Answer 1

Most advocates of capital punishment concede after some discussion that in the final analysis, the motive for the death penalty is sheer revenge. They hate the killer and therefore she must die. Her dying makes them feel better: a purely egotistical motive to kill. Revenge however has no place in a civilized society and belongs rather in the behavior repertoire of kindergardeners. One of the principal reasons for creating a system of justice is the elimination of acts of revenge. To kill a killer is the ultimate philosophical capitulation of society in face of violence.
The fact that death rows are closely guarded in order to prevent suicides shows clearly that vengeance combined with sadism, and not protecting society, is the underlying motive of capital punishment. Not only do we want her dead, but we want to enjoy ourselves in the process, and we want to determine time, place and manner of the show. However, once we have decided to act like barbarians and let all our darkest instincts surface, why not go all the way? Why stop at psychological torture? Why grant her a nice painless death by lethal injection? I propose that, in order to fully accommodate our desire for revenge, to maximize the deterring effect and to place the highest possible value on innocent life, murderers should be dragged naked through the streets and then slowly tortured to death in public.
Some argue that killing a killer is cheaper than housing her for the rest of her life; others argue the opposite. The question is completely irrelevant: the very discussion shows that society has already acquired the mindset of a killer, namely to think that it can be worthwhile to kill a human being for financial reasons. That is precisely what murderers do, and we have no moral right to punish them if we consider doing the same. I do not think anyone has the right to decide who dies.

That is why I think the death penalty is wrong.

Answer 2

Yes, it's a good policy.
1.) only 100% effective means of preventing repeat offenders. (99% sounds nice until your family is the victim of that 1%)
2.) It's the only true form of justice for murder. If you steal $5, then you owe $5, that's justice. If you take a life, the only thing you can surrender of equal value is your own life. Anything less is like stealing $5 and only having to pay back $1, it's not justice.
3.) It's cheaper, if it is done right. The current method is more expensive, but that is ony because the system is broken (20+ years on death row, unlimited appeals, expensive execution methods (gas, injection, etc.)). In a properly working system it would be far, far cheaper.
4.) Deterrent. Again, it would be a deterrent if it was used properly, but it isn't now. In 2005, there were ~16,000 murders and only 60 executions. That means there is less than a 1% chance that a murderer will get the death penalty. No penalty is a detterent if it is never used. If it was used 5,000 times a year or more, it would be a very effective deterrent.

Answer 3

Yes, the death penalty is a good policy. If you, a member of your family, a friend or even just someone you knew from your community was brutally murdered what would you want for the perpetrator? A death sentence most likely. I have seen so many of the crimes that qualify for the death penalty that were senseless and inhuman. Any person that with forethought commits murder should receive the ultimate punishment. They must pay the ultimate price to society and the victim as well as protect society and deter such future acts. If we deter only one such senseless murder then it is justified. Manslaughter or Murder 2 is appropriate when the intent of the killer cannot be sufficiently established to merit execution. My thought is that those cases should result in a life prison term without the possibility of parole. Anyone that takes a life should NEVER be allowed to walk freely in society again. Too many times we have seen murderers released from prison and they go on to kill again. All that said, for the death penalty to be applied the evidence must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect committed the murder and did so with malice or forethought. There can be absolutely no doubt as to their guilt. I can't imagine any worse feeling than awaiting execution for a crime that you did not commit. .

Answer 4

I'm against the death penalty. I don't believe the state owns our lives, or the right to take our lives away. In terms of societal benefits, I don't think there are any. It doesn't act as a deterrent to crime, and It's barbaric. Very few countries have the death penalty any more, and it's atrocious that, once again, we're among the last to figure it out. Maybe with all these convictions being overturned by DNA evidence, people will re-evaluate the death penalty, since once it is carried out, it cannot be reversed.

Answer 5

The death penalty truly ended one day in 33 AD.

Unfortunately, man has missed the point entirely. The Roman Catholics have executed more people than the 50 States but the Catholic Cardinal visits every death row inmate in the days before the execution.

The death penalty is not a deterrent - life without parole is a better deterrent because there are a lot of 17-25 year old men in prison who have continued to kill in light of their sentence. People demand justice but the death penalty does not provide justice but arrogance.

Answer 6

The main problem I have with the death penalty, is that it takes too damn long to carry out the sentence. Once the judge issues the death penalty, then that person should be walked out of the court room , given 5 minutes to tell their loved ones "see ya",, and then go to the next room and issue the death penalty phase. I bet more people would reconsider this knowing they will not sit in prison for ten years sponging off the tax payers,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer 7

The death penalty is bad policy. People will always kill and just putting someone to death for them killing doesn't make sense. Make them sit in prison for the rest of there lives thinking of what they did is better.

Otherwise I am for death penalty if its carried out right away instead of the 8-12 year wait of appeals and such.

Answer 8

I do not believe it achieves positive results. It merely takes out the trash.
Some people are so vicious, cruel and barely even human, it benefits society to rid it of those types of violent criminals.
Is it fair? Only if the truly guilty are the ones executed.
What is really unfair is the agony and loss the victims of the crime experience.
I fall on the side of the victim, not the criminal. I have no sympathy for murderers and child molesters.

Answer 9

For those who think life in prison is the answer, we spend the rest of their lives supporting them, and no prison is not a nice place to be, but then neither is the grave before your time, why should we provide all the necessities for anyone who takes the life of another. Is it a deterrent ? yes I think it would be if it were applied with out exception and with out ten or twenty years of maneuvering by lawyers. And as for fair ? I refer you to the victim......

Answer 10

This question would have been worth debating before the times of DNA testing. There should be one trial followed by a highly painful execution made public to all. This might help slow the murder rate. I know it sounds harsh, but is anyone a big enough idiot to deny its effectiveness?