Death Penalty?

Question

I'm against the death penalty - I was on the fence for a long time, not knowing which way to lean. But when I thought about it I came up with, what I think, are 3 good reasons "why not". They are:

1. If it turns out the guy was actually innocent - whoops, we killed the wrong guy, oh well!
2. I think that being in jail - NOT FUN - is a worse punishment than dying.
3. What was that that Ghandi said about "an eye for an eye"?!

Well that's what I think!
What do you guys think? And why?

Answer 1

You received several answers with mistakes about costs, deterrence, DNA, innocent people sentenced to death.a couple of answers with mistakes. Here are answers to questions asked about the death penalty system, with sources 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 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. Being locked up in a tiny cell all day, forever, is not a picnic.

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. See the last source I listed for details about this.

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

I agree with you and that's because primarily of the first reason you stated. We all know that for whatever reasons there are people who are wrongly convicted and we hear about people who have been on death row for 15 years until their DNA tests are done and show they were not the person who committed the crime. I don't know how we repay that person b/c when they get out they have already lost their life. Their wife has divorced and moved on to a new city w/ her new friends and family. Your kids who were 2 and 6 and now in their late teens and 20s. They don't know you and you are not a part of their lives and likely never will be. Your house has been sold and some new family is living in it. Your friends have aged, moved on and are no where to be found. Your boss no longer works at the company and you have no network from which to start your life. That's bad enough but the real problem is that as awful as that is, we can try to help that guy. We can't help him if he was electrocuted to death and that is too big a risk to take. I am a lawyer. I know that juries try their best to be fair and honest, but in the process of a prosecution the eyewitness who first said "well I didnt get that good a look at him but I know he had black jeans, a blue shirt and a ball cap on" learns more about the suspect and, in order to vindicate their own anger and b/c they think they should help the police put this "bad guy" in jail, the witnesses become advocates, and by the time they get to trial they can look at whoever is on trial and say "that's him there - I would never forget that face. I still get goosebumps every time I see him in my nightmares" and the witness actually often believes that without realizing that in their efforts to trap the bad guys they may be id'ing the wrong suspect. It happens all the time and we can't risk irreversible punishments on a system that has some mistakes and flaws in it.

Answer 3

I'm glad you came out on the right side. The state killing to show that killing is wrong is hypocritical. Also, you have issue #1 you raised, and that does happen. There was a young man in Canada who would have been killed years ago, but we abolished the death penalty in the '60s...and it turns out he was innocent. But they knew that back then and were railroading him. What if that were you? Being railroaded for something you didn't do, and you're facing the death penalty? It happens all the time in the US. I also agree that sitting and thinking about the things you did wrong is far more of a punishment than the death penalty. Regarding point #3, that was not Ghandi's idea, that is in the bible, and it is counterbalanced by a number of other passages that contradict its message. Capital punishment is far too easy for people who have really done some serious crimes. They deserve to rot in jail and think about what they've done--and, if they happen to be innocent, they deserve the opportunity to prove that--something they can't do if their country has killed them. Finally, while people say it costs a lot of money to keep people in jail (which it does), they should think about how much it costs to keep capital punishment. It is a very expensive procedure, particularly when the convicted person can appeal for years and years and years. The best way to avoid the discussion altogether is prevention. Invest money in children so they don't become gangsters and murderers, rather than wasting money on people who are lost causes.

Answer 4

I think that when an individual commits a heinous crime against the society in which he lives, he forfeits the rights afforded him by that society. Therefore, convicted criminals like murderers and rapists should have no rights.


Also, someone above me mentioned that some prisoners are actually better off in jail than they would have been outside. They don't work but they are given all the ammenities of life at our expense.

Anyone who is sentenced to more than a lifetime in prison should be put to death. I've read about criminals being sent to prison for 3 and 4 consecutive life sentences. The criminal has only one life, and it should be forfeit without costing the country millions of dollars.

If the death penalty was used consistantly it would be an effective deterrent for crime. As our system stands, criminals know that they will speand years in appeals and probably nothing more than going to prison will be their punishment even if they do receive the death penalty as a punishment.

Answer 5

I'm for the death penalty in certain circumstances. Unless the offence is 100% proved then a person should not be executed. The last thing I would want is for an innocent person to die.

Prisons have become more cushy with prisoners being given more perks. Also the cost of keeping someone in prison could be better spent on someone that really needs it.

Maybe then people will think twice about killing if the death penalty were restored.

Answer 6

The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for serious crimes. Used properly, it is also a deterrent. There are those who would say this is not so.

I suggest that if the death penalty was used more effectively, it would be a tremendous deterrent.

In terms of executing the innocent. This is a legitimate concern, and great care should be taken to assure this does not happen. A careful review of history, however, would reveal that this percentage is so low, you really have to eliminate it from the overall argument.

Now, in terms of jail vs. death penalty. I think it is wrong to argue from the perspective of the guilty. It is true that living in jail is hell, but people convicted of crimes deserving of the death penalty, do not deserve to live, plain and simple. You have to do what is right.

Also, from that perspective, their life in jail is a burden on you and me. We pay over $30K/year for each prisoner in the system. Those who have committed such crimes as murder, should cease to be a burden to society.

Lastly, going back to my original point. My thinking is that the death penalty needs to be expanded to include rape, and child molestation. It is time we take our culture back and remove these animals from the earth permanently. This would be a true and effective deterrent.

Answer 7

answer to (q1)
DNA samples and the more scientific data can prove without doubt that the party involved is guilty

answer (q2)
being in jail these days is fun with all the privileges that the inmates get
ie television ,games and recreation,work,3 square meals a day cigarettes and tobacco

(even some people who have committed no crime don't get this standard of living)

answer (q3)
ghandi quote"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. "

a eye for a eye is just(tell some poor Innocent person who loved one has be taken away by some violent act that it wrong)

Answer 8

I'm very much FOR the death penalty to be reintroduced in U.K........

With DNA testing and matching, the chances of an innocent person being wrongly put to death are practically nil

In the prisons here, the criminals demand "their human rights" to drugs, alcohol, as well as the same rights that we on the outside get. It's madness.

It costs a lot of tax-payers' hard-earned money to keep the criminals in prison

We keep hearing about massive over-crowding in our prisons, and as a result, many criminals are not being incarcerated but being given ASBOs (which they appear to take pride in) or other menial "punishments".

If a person destroys a life, either by murder, terrorism, abuse of a child, they should have their life taken

Answer 9

Gandhi said "An eye for an eye would make the whole world go blind".

All industrialized countries with the exception of one abolished the death penalty years ago. You're in the majority on this one.....maybe not at home but as far as it goes with the rest of the world

Answer 10

you need to get with the programme . prison is a holiday camp were you get a roof ,3 meals a day . no waiting for a doctor a dentist with no charge and no waiting . my farther-in-law as cancer and has to wait 3 months for a x ray . so maybe he would be better of as a criminal .. and do you have kids as i bet your outlook would change if god forbid any thing happened to them . this country is run by lily livered liberals pandering the the lily livered that live here . an eye for an eye and death penalty should be dished out for kiddy fiddlers and rapist and murderers in 24 hours of conviction . why should i keep the scum of the earth alive . my tax should be spent on those that want to live in a civilised way .