Death Penalty Right or Wrong?

Question

Do you believe we should bring the death penalty back to Britain?

Do you believe the death penalty is a way of punishing people or preventing them repeat their crimes?

So you believe in a eye for an eye?

Or do you believe people can change their ways?

I believe everyone is capable of killing another person, it is our animal instincts. In most cases it is the matter of wrong place at the wrong time. We don't know how we would react in a certain situation which could result in us killing

Answer 1

Why would Britain want to copy a flawed American system. The death penalty is not effective in preventing or reducing crime and it risks the exectution of innocent people. Here are answers to questions asked about the practical aspects of the system. The sources are listed 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. 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.

BTW, some people mistake deterrence (persuading others not to commit the crime for which someone was punished) with incapacitation (preventing recidivism.)

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.

Note to sweepea: The studies you are referring to are seriously flawed. You can read about them, see the actual studies or just the abstracts and read some of the discussion about them at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.
Click on deterrence and then on recent deterrence studies.

Answer 2

The death penalty should not be brought back It is far too final and does not allow for mistakes to be rectified, or at least not continued.

What most people call 'rights' are actually licences. Such things can be revoked under certain conditions. One of these is freedom. Freedom to live your life in the way you choose is licensed. If you go beyond the limits of what it is acceptable to do , freedom can be revoked and you can be imprisoned.

However, there are some things that are rights and as such cannot be revoked. Such rights are inviolable and are free-standing, in that they are not affected by any other consideration. Such a right is the right to life. Taking someone's life can never be justified. Imprisoning someone for many years to account for a crime is acceptable and proper.

The death penalty is a way of preventing people from committng crimes, simply because if people are dead, they cannot do anything.

An eye for an eye is an ancient concept, from the Old Testament. It's interesting to contract the Old and New Testament ideals of vengeance and compassion (turning the other cheek). Revenge does not lead to justice. Revenge is merely anger turned against the person that wronged you.

Some people can change their ways, some people can rehabilitate, others not. It is a fine line, but killing someone off prevents anyone finding out whether they could reintegrate.

Answer 3

No, it's completely barbaric; regardless of them changing. It's seen as merciless for a soldier to shoot an enemy if he's lying injured and unarmed on the floor; the same principle applies, its wrong to kill someone who is detained and poses no threat. It is not a deterrent, the offenders of the most serious crimes that people would want the death penalty brought back for rarely consider the consequences and are usually deeply disturbed individuals. It would inspire people to simply kill more witnesses in a bid to escape death if anything. Countries which have the most criminals are the ones that carry out capital punishment, instead of trying to change a potentially corrupting culture governments are more concerned with killing criminals, breeding a culture of contempt and warped glory for the criminals (something some are attracted to).

Again, rehabilitation, not redemption. We need to have a humanitarian attitude and help people to change.

I just don't understand how killing a killer/rapist = justice...? It's still killing another human and makes you no better. People advocating capital punsihment and even, ludicrously, torture are usually uneducated sensationlist types who's knee-jerk reaction is "Kill 'em!"; it's this sort of uncivilised attitude that we were supposed to have abandoned. I don't believe it should ever be left to a referendum or something similar as it's a basic human right, however many people are for it is pretty much an irrelevancy.

Answer 4

Current polls on this topic ask whether people prefer life without parole or the death penalty as the most serious punishment. (The choice is not between kill them or release them at some future date.) The most recent Gallup poll that asked this, found that, 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. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. To give you some idea about these, here are answers to some of the questions people are asking about the death penalty. The sources are listed below. Isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison? (This is where a couple of answers you received are mistaken.) The death penalty costs much more than life in prison. Much of the extra costs is 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. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime. What about the risk of executing innocent people? Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. 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. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not. Most killers don't think about the consequences anyway. They do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.) So, what are the alternatives? Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Supermax prisons are terrible places to spend the rest of your life. 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? Many of the 123 innocent people released from death row had already been there for over 2 decades. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 5

I believe that Britain should reinstate the death penalty. I also believe that it is a suitable way to punish people for committing horrific crimes, like murderers or repeat rapists. I'm certain that it's a way of preventing some people from committing such crimes as well. Someone might think about killing someone, but then think about dieing themselves if they're caught. It also keeps people who have already committed a crime from committing it again if they know they'll get the death penalty.
As for believing in "An eye for an eye", only to an extent. I'm not sure that everyone should have done to them what they've done. Some people actually just make horrible mistakes and regret it for the rest of their lives. I believe that some people are capable of changing as well. Not everyone who ever committed a crime or done something wrong has done it repeatedly. People are capable of changing.

Answer 6

I don't believe that death is any sort of penalty itself.

I believe that there are two reasonable approaches for some crimes:
1)It is our job to penalize the guilty. Then some people who have committed the worst, most horrible crimes, should die in suffering.
2)We shouldn't penalize the guilty. You may for example say, it's in a God's hands. Then they should be painlessly put to death.

But some "people" should no longer live in a society because they are too dangerous. For example, i don't believe that a frequent rapist will change his way.

The death penalty is 100% effective in preventing people from committing further crimes.
I believe that rape, and a premeditated murder should end with death penalty. And I don't think It's an eye for an eye. Those "eyes" are priceless and death won't make it even. It's just one of the ways which may be successful in providing order to a society.

Answer 7

Oh, UK.

I'm a Yank, but oppose the death penalty.

BTW, the "eye for an eye" was actually meant to be a maximum, not a minimum. That is, if someone takes your eye out, you shouldn't KILL them for it -- inflict a more severe punishment -- but do no more than whatever it was they did.

Or so I've heard.

We do know that people HAVE changed; we can't predict who will and who won't, but if we didn't kill them we could learn more about this whole thing.

There's also the question "How many innocent people is it OK to murder because the death penalty was misapplied, and how are you going to restore them to life?" kinda question.

Although I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it's barbaric, disgusting, and sub-human, I also like to raise the issue of murdering people who didn't do it.

Answer 8

I do not believe in bringing the death penalty back to UK. If someone is found guilty of a horrendous crime, such as murder, rape or child molesting, they should be in prison for life, with no chance to get out.

Shall UK then go back to the days where people were drawn and quartered, or hung, or burnt at the stake - for sure and that's what some would want next.

Answer 9

Right!!! Just think... you hang a Pedofile... they will never be able to harm a kid ever again.

Murderers wouldnt be able to kill again.

A Rapist wouldnt be able to force another person to have sex again.

Chop a hand off for a major theft, then the other if they do it again...

The death penalty is THE only way to make sure these people have NO chance of re-offending, and im sure it would make others think twice before committing any crime.

The justice system is way too soft, a life for a life or if you are sent to prison for life then it should be for life, not 25 years and let out on parole for 'Good behaviour'.

I would like to see the Death penalty brought back, dont care which one it is as long as it works.

Answer 10

Depending on the crime, and the person's history, in some cases, the death penalty is good. Innocent people die at the hands of murderers, and they should be taken off the earth for their crimes of hate. My grandmother was murdered by a serial killer in 1946, and he was put to death a year or so later, in all, he killed 6 people