Your thoughts on the Death penalty?

Question

Immoral- Is it immoral to Kill people?
Upholding Justice- Isn't this the right thing to do?
Safer Society- By Killing murderers, Do we deter other criminals?
Rehabilitation- Can we expect Murderers to change?

Answer 1

The death penalty isn't an effective way to prevent or reduce crimes and it is a system that can bury its worst mistakes.
Here are answers to some of the questions asked about the practical aspects of the system. The sources are listed below and are easy to use.

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. Many people do not know rarely DNA is a factor.

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. (Suggestion to open thoughts- take a look at the numbers on homicide rates and numbers of executions, and at the list of other articles by the author of the study you have referred to. You will be amazed.)

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.

Answer 2

Two wrongs don't make one right. I live in Texas USA. Many innocent men have been put to death here. Innocence was not determined before after the sentence was carried out. Death is irreversible. I don't like it for the reasons stated above. Do I want it. NO. It has not affected my life personally. But reading stories about men that have been put to death and then later found innocent disturbs me greatly as a human being. Things would no change if it were done away with. Horrendous crimes will still be committed by sick minds even if there is a death penalty. Things would not change. More death row inmates were put to death in Texas by former Governor of Texas (and later president), George W. Bush than any other time in Texas history. Crimes are still being committed here.

Answer 3

In the ten commandments we are admonished to not kill. People who do not kill are (hopefully) elevated spiritually. One or more may be wrongfully convicted, the jury system is not fair but adversarial. Truth is sparse in many courtrooms, prosecutorial egos and filters of the jurors, rulings on points of law, evidence admission or exclusion.
States decide in the US whether to impose a death penalty by law; justice is not conceptually similar to legislation, in my opinion. Yet, when we accept the notion of a system of laws, we also pay for the mercenary army to enforce them, because it is a job that has a mandate. Keeping the convicted (Leonard Peltier) inside also has expenses.
It has been revealed to me, so I'll share it with you; laws do not prevent crimes. Laws don't even make a person intent on doing an act slow down and consider the consequences. It is futile, the assumption is that everyone knows not to... the press and media sensationalize every situation, and ignore the legal precedents, focused upon the aftermath and clean up crew. How can any one learn what triggers a murder? Fiction and some imaginative entertainment is most peoples frame of reference. But I'm skeptical of any deterred due to the fear of legal consequences.
Change is either immediate and healthy, or delayed and hidden. I once worked part time with a convicted murderer. He had done his time, and was an intense and private person. A few years after I left the area, he stalked a woman and killed her in front of witnesses; nothing would prevent her death as far as he was determined. Maybe he was unique, maybe not.

Answer 4

No, it's not immoral to kill those who have committed a crime worthy of death. It IS permanent so we'd better make damned sure we're right before we impose it.

Perhaps it deters other murderers, perhaps not, I don't care. It certainly WILL prevent the executed person from killing again.

I don't doubt that some murders can be, and are, rehabilitated. That's why we have a judicial system with the option of imposing different penalties depending on the facts of each case.

Answer 5

I see nothing wrong by making "Proven" murderers serve life sentences, not being coddled, and made to support themselves by holding down jobs while in prison, but according to Jesus Christ, capitol punishment is totally immoral, and should have been abolished when he was crucified.

He told the men who were about to stone Mary Magdeline, to death, to let the person there, that had no sin, cast the first stone.

He said in Matthew 5:38 & 39 "Man will tell you "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," but I say unto you that if a man smites thee of your right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Many people will answer this with "The Bible says an eye for an eye"

But, when they do this they are forgetting that we no longer live by the old laws of Moses.

Since Christ came into the world, and was crucified, we now live by grace.

God also said "Vengeance is Mine!"

This means that only God has the right to give life or to take a life.

It does not give the states or the feds the right to play God and do the work that he does so well in his good time.

Two wrongs never make a right.

Whose loved one has ever come back to life simply because their loved one's murderer was put to death by the state?

If you are a true Christian and you believe the words of Jesus Christ you are against the death penalty.

.

Answer 6

It is immoral to MURDER people, but not to render punishment that fits the crime.

Yes, it is doing to right thing, creates a safer society by deterring others...see the link below. It is about time this study is published.

As for rehabilitation...why should they be given the chance to have a normal life? They took a life, plus destroyed the lives of their loved ones.


US Veteran...you (and many others) take Jesus' words too far. Turn the other cheek did not mean that you allow anyone to to do anything that they want to you. If you had 2 daughters and one was raped and murdered, do you think Jesus would have you hand over the other one? Vengence is Mine sayeth the Lord...yes, and he will take care of the soul as He sees fit, but to take the Bible and twist it to fit your meaning is wrong. The study cited below shows that the death penalty deters as many as 18 future murders. How is that execution wrong?

As for the "Thou shalt not kill" crowd...Look up the origin of this phrase, and the word is murder, not kill. And the difference is obvious.

Answer 7

I have absolutely no problem with the death penalty being enforced.... however, only in cases where we know with all certainty that the person is guilty.

DNA evidence in recent years have shown that we need to be much more careful with our sentencing.

Prisons are not really commissioned to rehabilitate criminals. The question is do we have a obligation (to society) to "try" to rehabilitate criminals and how much money do we want to pay for that? Personally, I just don't believe that there is a proven method to rehabilitate. It seems that it is always a indivdual determination to change (either out of aging or just not wanting to be imprisoned again).
But with that said there is a LOT of mental disorders in our prison populations and proper medications could potentially prevent a lot of further crime.

Answer 8

Though I believe most people can be rehabilitated, some can not change. Even in thoes situations killing them for killing another person is wrong. I admit if someone had killed one of my family members I would be filled with rage and want the murderer dead but that is when I am not in a rational state. Overall killing a person is wrong unless it is in self defense and there was no other choice. An eye for and eye leaves everyone blind.......

Answer 9

I do think that some people deserve the death penalty in certain situations. If a person is very remorseful and truly sorry for what they've done, I would not want the death penalty for that person. Every single case should be treated differently. Never assume someone is guilty and not know for sure. A lot of people are quick to judge.

Answer 10

When you prey on another person and take their life you forfeit your right to live and if you make that choice there should be no discussion or appeal.
That's what annoys me about people against it everybody has choice in life but some get that taken away from them why don't they respect their rights.
We live in very technical and scientific age with DNA if there is any doubt then obviously they should not be put to death but if there is no doubt well they made the choice kill someone.