Do you believe in death penalties? Why or Why not.?

Answer 1

I oppose the death penalty because it is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime and because it risks t executing innocent people. 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.

Answer 2

I agree with the death penalty.

I think it should be limited to rape and murder.
Hard to define murder. If you sneezed while driving and ran over a kid, i don't think you should even do jail time for that.....

I'd say you need to have DNA evidence, or crystal clear video evidence for the death penalty to be an option.

I think too with DNA evidence, the appeal time can be dropped from 10 years to something shorter...maybe 5. This gets back to the guy sneezing while driving the car. Maybe it was an accident....


Thats part of the reason i agree with the death penalty the appeal. Those guys on death row...some are innocent, but i'd say most are guilty. THey appeal soo much because they don't want to die. THey rather spend life in prison.

If you don't want to die, then don't kill someone (or rape).

I do think maybe age should be a little more of a factor. An 18 year old committing murder...legally an adult, but i don't think entirely mature enough to know his actions. Not sure, again, how to define that.

I also think the family of the victims....after the sentencing, can choose to reduce the penalty to life in prison if they want and have that option until the day of execution.

Answer 3

This may seem harsh, and it is certainly not in line with modern thinking, but I believe it is the government's responsibility to protect the citizens, and for the person who has taken the life of another, that might include the death penalty. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life." In my humble opinion, I think that It would certainly hinder others from committing murder if they knew that they had death to look forward to, rather than a life of ease in a prison where they have TV, a library, movies, and every other creature comfort in some instances. But I also believe that the death penalty should be the last option.

Answer 4

Absolutely, but only when there is 100% surety that the defendent is guilty. If some shmuck goes and rapes, tortures, and kills two 7 year boys (really happened in Conn.) then we shouldn't have to pay for his toiletries for the rest of his miserable life. They will never again serve a purpose to society so why does society feel the need to cloth, feed, and take care of these wackos.

I know some will say they had a bad life growing up and what not but so what I did too. Alot of people have that went on to lead good lives. If they think there life here was hard try afghanistan. Being a woman there is probably the worst card you can ever draw. Some of the more well to do in that country live worse than our homeless.

Answer 5

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

If you are Christian you cannot ignore this verse. It states that an eye for an eye may have been justified in Jewish law, but we should go beyond the law and forgive.

Gandhi once said "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."

Vegence should not be the cornerstone of a judicial system. Justice should be redressing the balance for society as a whole. It benefits nobody to kill over imprisonment, it may help a victims family seek closure, but it affects another family and other innocents.

Spiritually there is no justification, morally there is no justification, economically (it is more expensive to execute someone than imprison them for life) there is no justification.

Life is sacred and nobody has the right to take a life save God himself.

Answer 6

Well, I believe in them. But I don't think they are right. I mean, it's cruel and I think the people should just face quite some years in prison but not be killed. Although some are never sorry for what they do, others become Christians and believe in God to save them, since it says in the Bible that God can forgive any sin.(I just wonder, how in the world is he gonna forgive suicide?) Of course, then if those people face the death penalty, then why don't the people who kill them have to face it also. I mean, what does the government gain by killing someone? Nothing. That might fry them out of their pants for years and years, but once their dead, they can do nothing. It's not like if they kept them in prison that they would go and kill another person. STUPID GOVERNMENT LAW! It needs to be made a law against no killing period. Not even killing the killers.

Answer 7

No.
1. One innocent man on death row is one too many. There are always judicial mistakes and people get freed on DNA too often these days.
2. Different states have varying sentencing guidelines and death penalty statutes. Creates wiggle room for debates about jurisdiction - a capital crime should be the same in all states or not existent.
3. Threat of the sentence enhancement for capital crimes is commonly used to elicit deals and plea bargains. It becomes a cheap trick and leads to a highly unequal enforcement of the laws.
4. The death penalty has been shown in countless studies to have no crime prevention benefits.

Answer 8

I believe in the Death penalty in the case of punishment for murder. I also believe that due to its finality there must be a careful system of appeals in place to help prevent an innocent person from being executed.

Answer 9

Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing someone who has killed is simply making you as bad as they are.

If you don't believe in murder you can't justify murdering anyone.

People have to be prevented from doing it again but I think having to live with the fact that you have killed somebody a greater punishment than the easy way out of being put to death yourself.

With the exception of Sociopaths everyone has some measure of conscience and pays a heavy price for taking anothers life.

Vengeance does not equal justice!

Answer 10

Currently no. One, it hasn't been shown to deter crime. Two, It cost more to exicute the death penalty with all its steps than it does to keep a person locked up for life. Three, groups such as the innocence project have shown the flaws in the system. It is suppose to be fool proof. Better no one pay the price than one innocent person die.