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

2007-06-08 10:01:58 · 37 answers · asked by Little Anthony 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

37 answers

1) 0% chance of recidivism.
2) No chance of escape.
3) No costs associated with feeding, housing, or medical care.
4) Closure for the family of the victim.
5) A warm, fuzzy feeling for me.

2007-06-08 10:04:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

Most of the answers just ignored facts and some are mistaken The death penatly is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime. Here are answers to some questions people often ask about the practical issues surrounding this issue, with sources listed below. I think that facts and common sense are better ways to think about this than quick sound bites.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

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.

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.

2007-06-12 05:59:58 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0 0

In my opinion, there are tons of negative aspects of the death penalty, none of them having anything to do with me not wishing the deserving the very worst they have coming to them. This said, the most positive aspect I can think of for the dealth penalty is that the family of the victims get closure and never have to stay up at night wondering if this is the year that the jerk who violated their lives gets to go back out on the streets to rebuild their own lives.

2007-06-08 10:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by Breanna C 3 · 2 2

No, it is no longer. there are various situations - way too many - while somebody has been stumbled on harmless in common terms after serving years, even a protracted time, on dying row. Others have been gotten the dying sentence decrease than different questionable circumstances, including one guy or woman who replaced into critically mentally retarded and judged by potential of psychiatrists to have the mentality of an 8 year previous. could you place an 8 year previous to dying? Or how with regard to the contemporary case the place a guy replaced into accomplished even regardless of the undeniable fact that each witness who had testified against him had recanted their testimony? He could desire to have been in charge however the choose and the state have been unwilling to seem into the subject any extra desirable.

2016-10-09 12:26:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Hold on.......you actually think that there is something positive about the death penalty. I agree that justice shall be served, but who give the law the right to murder another person just because they think its the right thing to do. Do anyone read the bible anymore?

2007-06-08 10:14:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There are several. The criminal will never commit another crime. He will take up no more time in our courts. It will free up a cell, which we need more of. The taxpayers don't need to feed and house the criminal any longer. And it's what he deserves. These people know what the laws are, and what the penalties are for violating them. We need more of it.

2007-06-08 10:13:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The public and the taxpayers don't have to support those dirtbags for the rest of their lives, with free meals, medical, dental, sports, supervision, clothes, free room and board.
That's 50,000 dollars a year per scumbag on death row.

That money could go to much better things.
If the crime was so terrible to warrant the death penalty...then do it.

2007-06-08 10:07:18 · answer #7 · answered by Blues Lovin' Daddy 6 · 2 1

No more taxes paying for them to have TV, a radio and all the other things normal people have with the exception of freedom. They even have lovers in prison (may not be their preferred sex but they are lovers).

2007-06-08 10:10:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Well if it worked the way it should, accurately and swiftly, it would mean less crowded prisons, and more importantly it would act as a deterrent . I think some of the sick bastards of the world would think twice before they did something wrong if they knew they could be dead for it by the end of the month!

2007-06-08 10:06:48 · answer #9 · answered by Cabrõn 4 · 1 1

The only justification for the death penalty is revenge, or because people feel that the criminal deserves death. Capital punishment has been proven not to deter crime, costs more than life imprisonment, has led to the executions of innocent people, etc. etc.

Notice that everyone is saying no repeat crimes, but life in prison accomplishes the same goal.

2007-06-08 10:04:45 · answer #10 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3 4

fedest.com, questions and answers