Isn't the Death penalty Common sense?

Question

There are several repeat offenders, If you Kill someone who is committing serious crimes, they will never commit a crime again, and you have stopped all future crimes commited by the individual.

Of course the death penalty works, isn't it ridiculous to believe otherwise? is it just wishful thinking? Do people just like to believe that killing another human is so wrong that it couldn't possibly be justified? Personally I think some of them need to get out of Disney land and realize that sometimes, people are better off dead.

It's almost impossible not to find a repeat offender, i'm sure a murderer doesn't just kill 1 person and become satisfied and then hold up a regular office job and attend church all day, and never do it again. He'll kill again,He'll rape again, or sell drugs again again. Whether or not the death penality will "Deter" crime, is *possibly* debatably, but it would'nt it be safe to say it Prevents it?

debatable*

Jules thats ridiculous, get the hell out of here. Accidental death, isn't Murder, get a grip man.

Answer 1

I dont know how many innocent people are put to death although I am sure some have been and there have been about a dozen or so lately that have been let out of prison and found not guilty because of DNA evidence.

Does the death penalty work? You bet it does. It works in the sense that a murderer will never murder or commit any crime again.

I dont know that sentencing anyone to death costs more than letting them languish in prison or not. Usually, a death sentence means that person will live on average another 16-18 years, or just about the same as a life sentence. The last I had heard, it costs about 33 thousand a year to house an inmate. If he was sentenced to death and had four years worth of appeals, that would be about 132 thousand dollars. If he was kept for 30 years, without inflation, it would cost a million dollars and he could commit more crimes in prison or if and when he got out.

Death penalty works, we just have to be certain the person is guilty and it make take another 10 years to close out back cases with current DNA technology.

Answer 2

You're focusing on the wrong part thing here. There's no debating the individual deterrence of the death penalty -- if you execute someone, they will not go on to murder anyone else. But if the alternative is putting them in jail for life without parole ... the effect is the same and, according to federal government statistics, cheaper.

The personal argument is that no one has the right to take another person's life, and that that extends to the government. It's a logical extension of the idea that murder is bad, but it's a matter of personal opinion.

What is not a matter of personal opinion are the flaws in the system. These are the reasons I oppose the death penalty: not because I think it's immoral or even a bad punishment for murderers, but because it's impossible to implement fairly, effectively, and (most importantly) without error. Murder trials often rest upon the testimony of one eyewitness, and psychology has shown that people's memories of such events are wildly unreliable. If you don't believe psychology, then look at DNA -- in many cases in which someone has been found out to be innocent after 15 years in jail or after being executed, eyewitnesses will still swear to their memory -- even though they're simply wrong.

Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be sentenced to death than women -- and that is almost always when the victims were children. But, more alarmingly, minorities are much, much more likely to be sentenced to death for exactly the same crime as a white person (and they're more likely to be convicted on the same or less evidence, too). Add all of this to the fact that the average time that it takes to exonerate an innocent person convicted of murder is right at the average time a person waits to be executed, and the result is a system that routinely executes innocent people, with a prejudice against poorer people and minorities. The death penalty may be common sense, but making sure that all the right people and only the right people are executed is impossible.

Answer 3

Repeat offenders of violent crimes should receive the death penalty and it should be carried out within 7 days of conviction. We have DNA testing and many advanced forensic tools today that can accurately determine guilt. When irrefutable proof is provided not even an insanity plea should protect the perpetrator. The execution should be televised also as a deterrent for others to see. I would like to stress this as a solution only for repeat offenders. Traditional incarceration while often unaffective is still a humane way to attempt rehabilitation. Sending a repeat offender back to prison however is often more a reward than a punishment. They had no remorse for their victim so why should society reward them with a lifetime of food and shelter.

Answer 4

What gets little notice is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents.

Answer 5

Let's say you or a close friend or family member reaches down to adjust the car radio or is on the cell phone, hits another car and kills it's passengers. I bet the relatives of the ones lost would believe in the death penalty at that time, but YOU won't!

Answer 6

Yeah I guess in some cases it is true, the world might be better off if they were dead, but to kill someone who's killed another person makes you just as at fault as them. You're a hypocrite.

BUT, they shouldn't be released unless found not guilty after being put in jail. The offender should have life imprisonment.

Answer 7

The problem with the death penalty is that there are many, many innocent people wrongfully convicted, each year, and to kill hundreds and hundreds of innocent people just seems wrong to me... And the death penalty costs more money than to just keep the prisoner in prison for life without paroll.

Answer 8

Yes, I couldn't agree more with you. One death should only logically merit another death. Also, I believe that corporal punishment is a fitting way to "deter" crime. After all, who would rob a store when they could get publically flogged for such injustices?

Answer 9

<> basically in view which you do no longer are conscious of it does not propose it incredibly isn't any longer smart. <> No. the two are distinctive Abortion is on the subject of the wrongful death of harmless human beings. Capital Punishment is approximately putting to death criminals who characterize such an affront to peace and civility that the only actual to guarantee they gained't disrupt that peace and civility is by making use of putting the to blame occasion to death. <> The criminal being positioned to death is to blame. The unborn are harmless. you do no longer see the moral distinction right here? <> even though it is not "medically mandatory"! issues that threaten the life of mom and toddler may well be corrected by making use of potential of medical approaches. If mandatory, the unborn may well be faraway from the womb and placed in an incubator. <> i've got already defined it. there's a brilliant ethical distinction interior the indisputable fact that abortion kills the harmless whilst Capital Punishment kills the to blame. see you later as you nevertheless forget on the subject of the moral distinction between the harmless and the to blame, you will by no potential understand.

Answer 10

Patrick M wrote a terrific, fact based answer. John M and many other people are mistaken about what DNA can and cannot do:

DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.