When would someone kill someone else and not get the death penalty?

Answer 1

Actually, the death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers.

I do not support the death penalty because it is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime and it risks executing innocent people.

124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA was a factor in 15 of these cases. In fact, DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent.

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.

Answer 2

State laws are different. Capital Punishment is a controversial subject. More and more states are doing away with it. Even though most states have capital punishment, the average is 10 years on death row, costing an estimated $10 million dollars person. Life w/o parole is cheaper. If the person is convicted and sentenced to death, it should be swift and carried out immediately after the trial.

Answer 3

Several ways....

1. Justifiable homicide (self defense, defense of others, official duty)

2. Unintentional killings (auto accidents, mutual brawls, etc)

3. Jurisdiction doesn't have a death penalty statute.

Answer 4

war.
also if the person is insane, does not know the difference between right and wrong, is not convicted of the crime (O.J. Simpson),is a peace officer in the performance of their duty, and of course-everyone's favorite -if you don't get caught...

Answer 5

If Democrats had their way, there would be no death penalty.
Democrats believe that murderers, child killers, and rapist killers can be cured with "Sensitivity Classes", and by being given "Big Democrat Group Hugs".

Answer 6

self defence

Answer 7

wen the murderer sneaks away