What do you think about the death penalty?

Question

Should it be used?
When should it be used?
What limits, if any, should be put on it?
...and any other thoughts you have on this issue.

Answer 1

Absolutely should be used in all rape and murder cases. The only limits that should be put on it are that it should not cost Americans $2 million tax dollars for every execution. They should put a bullet in the murderers head, and have his family pay for the bullet.

Trust me, to all those who are against the death penalty, if it happened to a family member in front of your eyes, you'd be singing a different tune.

Also, it should not be called a "penalty", more of an eradication. 90% of sex offenders and murderers, are repeat offenders. That means that they go to jail, get out on good behavior, then just commit the same crime again. Maybe we're just ignorant, but the death penalty should be used not as punishment, but just simply to rid the earth of scum like this without taking up space in prisons for other felons.

Answer 2

The "punishment" phase of "Crime and Punishment" in this country is a joke. People commit, in some cases, multiple murders and with succesful plea deals can walk away from prison within 15 years. Murder is murder, the taking of a life, aside from self defense, should not have different levels of severity. I think the problem with the death penalty is that its use is too in frequest, drawn out, and the use is random. Two guys commit a crime, one pleads, the other doesn't, one gets death the other life. Screw it, death to both. And sooner rather than later. In the age of DNA there are times when guilt is 100% proven people should wait upwards of 10 years for sentance to be carried out. The sooner the better.

Answer 3

I oppose the death penalty because it is not an effective way to prevent or reduce crime and because of the risk of executing innocent people. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the system 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. 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.

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. (xjmox14x should look at some of the statements by family members, links below)

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 4

I believe,in a few cases, people like Charles Manson and Ted Bundy should deserve to die the cruelest methods possible.I beleive the Death Penalty should be reserved for those kind of people,whom murder others,possibly for cases or rape as well.

Answer 5

Sure it should be used. Some people can't or choose not to be rehabilitated. Cold-blooded murders and pedophiles are some that should be put to death, especially when there's DNA evidence, such as in the South Louisiana Serial Killers case. There's no doubt that, that evil monster terrorized and tortured those women and their families. We certainly don't need him around anymore. 2D

Answer 6

I don't believe in it. I think it's barbarous and I think we should have gotten past it by now, as most developed countries have.

Even so, I would support it if I thought it worked. But clearly it doesn't. There are no statistics to prove that the death penalty has any effect on crime, in fact if you look at -all- the statistics they show that capital crimes increase when the death penalty is re-instated. The purpose of government crime policy is to prevent crime and protect people. If the death penalty doesn't do this, then it has no place.

(And consider this: If the death penalty really did serve to deter crimes, and this was its major purpose, then it wouldn't be necessary for the defendant even to really be guilty! You could railroad some guy through a fake trial and execute him, and it would have the same effect!)

It doesn't even save money. Because of the cost of all the appeals, it costs the state more to execute a person in the US than to keep him in prison for the rest of his life without chance of parole.

99% of people sentenced to death in the US are indigent, not able to afford their own defense. If a rich person kills someone he either gets off altogether, or else he gets a much lighter penalty, only because he's able to defend himself so the prosecutor doesn't try for the death penalty. Also it's been shown that blacks killing whites are MUCH more likely to get the death penalty than whites killing blacks. Considering it's unequal application is another reason to get rid of it.

Finally, there have been DOZENS of people in the past few years who were convicted of murder but cleared later by DNA evidence. Some of them had been in prison or even on death row for as long as 25 years! They could not have been released if they'd been executed. We don't know how many people already executed were innocent because the state usually destroys all the trial evidence after an execution, so nobody's been able to review those cases with DNA, only the ones of convicts who haven't yet been executed.

In these investigations, facts came to light that really indict our justice system! In many of these cases, the defendant only spent as little as 45 minutes with his overworked public-appointed attorney before the trial. Many cases relied on the testimony of a single 'star witness' who testified to keep out of prison himself or have his own sentence reduced, or who recanted his own testimony later, saying that the police coerced him and told him what to say. Considering the imperfection of our justice system, solutions as irreversible as the death penalty are not a good idea.

Sadly the death penalty has become a matter of politics, not one of practicality and pragmatism. Any candidate who admits to not being in favor of the death penalty--or even as having been against it in the past-- is immediately jumped on by his rival as 'soft on crime'. So politicians try to outdo each other on being 'tough on crime'. This kind of politics doesn't serve us well.

Answer 7

I believe that the death penalty should only be used in the case of serial murderers or serial rapists. (Someone who has commited the same crime at least 3 times is considered a serial offender) These people can not be rehabilited,and if they are convicted of 3 seperate crimes the chance of them being wrongfully conivicted and sent to Death Row for crimes they did not commit are almost impossible.

Answer 8

FOR IT!! I think it should be used in ALL 1st degree murders. I like the way the state of Texas thinks . . . if you kill someone in Texas, they will kill you back! I don't believe there is ANY fair prison term for a murderer. What, kill a person and finish living your life out in an institution that often gives 'rank' (among prisoners) to those who've committed murder? I'm sure the victim would've liked to have finished living THEIR life out!

Answer 9

they say it doesnt stop crime, but im pretty sure that once done that person will never commit another one. Im all for it, as long as the person is guilty, and I think that in order to cut down on shoddy police work, that if an innocent person is convicted then everyone involved in putting him away should be executed too.

Answer 10

I am against it. - once the convict is deaad his suffering is done. Let him stew in prison the rest of his life!