Are you for or against the death penalty?

Question

In many developed contries, only China and Japan and U.S. have the death penalty. Not even Russia has one. I'm Japanese and against it. Here are main reasons.
1] Too many irreversible errors of misjudgements.
2] The rich can hire good lawyers but the poor can't.
3] The fairness of law tends to get lost when it's retaliatory.
4] Does nation have the right to kill its people?
5] A lack of information of the system of the death penalty.
6] A Wide range of humanity and knowledge of judges.
7] The death penalty doesn't seem to have the effects of prevention of crimes.
You can refer to "The Ultimate Punishment" by Scott Turrow for number 7.
There's saying in the Bible. "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." I don't believe in vengeance, but even if one does, why bother if the lord does that?
Arthur Schopenhauer said in "The world as will and idea" that law is for the future [prevention of crimes], not for the past [revenge] and I agree with him.

80% people are for it in Japan. Isn't it scary?

Added fact: It costs much more money to execute a prisoner that to imprison him.
Source: same as above by Scott Turrow

Sorry, correction. ...prisoners THAN to imprison...

Answer 1

Some of the answers you received are mistaken about the facts about the death penalty. Several are wrong about costs.
Some advocate speeding up the process without knowing the risks. Some are too optimistic about DNA. Here are answers to some of the questions often asked about the death penalty system in the United States. The sources are listed below.

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 extensive 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 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.

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

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people. Here are some faq's with sources below. 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 and can’t guarantee we won’t execute 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 and regions 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, mostly because of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. 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.

Answer 3

You raise a very good point. I could go on for hours about the downfalls and what redeems the death penalty, but I am mostly against it. It really depends on individual crime...If, for instance, the person killed multiple people, they should be allowed to have the death penalty. People who kill one person with provocation should not be given the death penalty. It is a very complicated issue. I do agree that it's irreversible. That's the point, not to seem too blunt. The lawyer thing is an excellent point, because the lawyer "provided to you by the court" in the US is often handling 30-40 cases at once, preventing quality defenses for all. A nation may have a right ot kill its peopl and it may not. It's certainly not the right thing to do, but t is not specifically outlinde in a Constitution or an equivelent in these countries. That may be the problem. I also agree that it doesn't have the effect on crime that we would like. Perhaps we have cocky criminals who don't think they will be caught--and in that case, not sentenced to anything, much less the death penalty. In conclusion, I think that it is not quite right to do it, but is necessary in some cases. Perhaps it needs to go through another person or group before someone can be sentenced with this ultimate punishment. You raise a great point that ought to be more discussed and debated.

Great question! Star for you!

Answer 4

For the death penalty.
You quote the Bible it does say if someone takes a life they are to be put to death. If you go to turn the other cheek it is Jewish saying meaning if someone insults you let roll off your back.
I have yet to hear about 1 person who has been put to death that every kill again.
Death penalty cases here in the US bring out legal firms out of the wood work so that alone is not an issue.
As far as #4 "does a nation.." does person have the right to kill in cold blood. Taking someone's life is killing but when you do it illegally than it is murder.
I know that is so PC to think that captial punishment is wrong and people look down at their noses at people who do.
When you read how some people are murdered, butchered, and tortured than we are to feel sorry for that guy because he had a bad childhood. Well TOUGH!

I like to see people like you start educating children and pushing the idea that murder is wrong on kids. Trash situational ethics.
Teach kids to have respect for the law and stop this "time out" junk.

Maybe if we work on the other end when kids are growing up we won't have such monsters.

Like at Columbine where the parents didn't mind if their kids were building bombs in their bedrooms so as not to hurt their feelings.

We start there maybe this whole death penalty debate would be mute.

Answer 5

For.

1) The death penalty does prevent murders, recent studies show that up to EIGHTEEN murders are prevented for each execution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

2) It's the only way justice can truly be carried out in murder cases.

3) There have been no cases of executing an innocent person in the US since DNA evidence became widely used.

4) If another person does or doesn't get the same penalty, it doesn't change the fact that the individual being executed murdered somebody and thus deserves death.

Answer 6

You raise some good points. But I believe in the death penalty. Why, because with today's science criminal acts are usually verifiable. The people who are being found not guilty after years are usually put in prison prior to DNA. The thing that really upsets me about death row is how long a person can remain there. I think that once a person has been sentenced he should have about a week before he gets his punishment. I am tired of my tax money supporting these people, especially the ones that kill little children.

Answer 7

I am certainly for the death penalty.

That laws can be unfairly aplied is an equal argument against all laws and all forms of punishment. You can say that imprisonment is 'reversible' but it really isn't. If you sentence someone to prison, and release him 4 years and 6 months into his 5 year sentence because you goofed, has his punishment really been reversed? No.

I do agree that there are problems with the system. It should not take so long nor be so expensive to execute those who are clearly guilty.

Answer 8

I agree with your results, but perhaps not all of your
reasoning. The "rich v. poor" and fairness logic is
applicable to ALL punishments, not just the death
penalty. What good does it do a man who has spent
his life in jail to find out on his death bed that he
is innocent?

The penal system performs 5 functions:

1: Makes victims feel better (retribution)
2: Protects criminal from society (anti-vigilanteism)
3: Protects society from criminal (isolation)
4: Encourages criminal not to do it again
(rehabilitation)
5: Encourages others not to become criminals
(strengthens societies values)

The US penal system is average at retribution, and probably
average at preventing vigilanteism, but we simply can't
keep people in jail forever and the system is very bad at
producing people who don't want to commit crimes.

How does the death penalty fit in these 5 schemes?

Well, its pretty good at retribution. Anti-vigilanteism
becomes moot, it perfectly prevents THAT criminal from
endangering society (isolation), rehabilitation becomes
moot.

However, it turns out that it completely utterly totally
fails at encouraging people to not become criminals.
Indeed in places which didn't have the death penalty and
then got it afterwards, the number of violent crimes
went up. In places where the death penalty has been
permanently banned, the violent crime rate went down and
stayed down (at least relatively).

And of course, due to the absoluteness of death, as
a society we want to make sure that any such penalty
is handed out with absolute fairness and only with un
shakeable belief in its applicability.

To do so is incredibly expensive, due to legal fees.

It is FAR cheaper to keep someone in jail for the rest of
their lives.

Personally, I believe we should be more concerned with
protecting society and rehabilitation than whether or
not the victims feel good about the fate of the accused.
That's not a particularly popular viewpoint but I believe
it will lead to less crime ... and isn't that really the
end goal?

Answer 9

Well the fact is that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. And if someone is proven to be guilty of murder than they should be sentenced to death. The death penalty is not killing someone to demonstrate that killing is wrong. The death penalty is executing to show that murder is wrong. The fact that rich people can afford lawyers is a whole other topic that needs to be addressed, because a person should not get off the hook for having money, but that doesnt mean we should let the poor murderers go. I say hang em all!!!!

Answer 10

I agree with all the reasons you give, 100%.

BTW, I didn't know Japan had the death penalty. I somehow doubt it is used very often. I know China executes somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 a year, which is simply stunning. That's up to 30 executions PER DAY! I don't know if France did that many during the Reign of Terror.

I wonder how many mistakes they make.

EDIT: To Cindy, above me - how does the death penalty teach killers a lesson? They are DEAD. When exactly do they apply the lesson they have learned by being dead???