is there any benefits from death penalty as a punishment for heinous crime?

Question

are you for or against death penalty? why....just curious

Answer 1

I was pro-death penalty for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 2

The death penalty system has a significant number of serious flaws. It is not an effective way to prevent or reduce crime and it risks executing innocent people. Here are some facts about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources listed below. I think it makes sense to start with the facts.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because of the costs of the legal process. When the death penalty is available, every aspect of the process- from pre trial investigation, to initial trial (which is really two separate Supreme Court mandated trials- one to determine guilt or innocence, the second to determine the sentence), automatic appeals of death sentences, subsequent appeals – is costly.

Secondly, for a punishment to act as a deterrent it must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Life without parole is both sure and swift (and rarely appealed.)
Homicide rates are higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. No reputable (reputable is the key word) study has shown the death penalty to be a deterrent.

Third, and most important, an execution cannot be reversed or reduced. As of now there have been 124 cases of people sentenced to death who were wrongfully convicted. Over 50 of these people had already served more than a decade. A speedier process would have guaranteed the execution of innocent people. Among these cases, several involved testimony from two or more eyewitnesses who lied or were just plain mistaken. Less than 20 of the 124 cases involved DNA evidence and DNA is available at homicide scenes less than 10% of the time, and can't guarantee we won't execute an innocent person.

In my opinion, the money saved by not resorting to capital punishment should be spent on victims assistance programs and on better funding for police and correctional officers (to include more staffing.)

Answer 3

The benefit is absolute individual deterrence: it prevents the convicted from killing (or committing treason) again. One claimed benefit is that the death penalty has a general deterrence effect -- that it scares people into not committing crimes punishable by death. However, research shows that general deterrence does not exist; in fact, some of the days with the highest murder rate are days in which executions and murders are well-publicized. The only statistically-significant deterrence effects come from being caught and (especially) being convicted, regardless of the penalty.

Disadvantages include killing people who are innocent (eyewitness testimony is much less definite than one would assume or hope), and the fact that it costs more to execute an inmate than to house and feed them for the rest of their lives (and that's a federal government statistic). It also costs the judicial system a lot of time and money for the appeals process.

Personally, I'm not morally against the death penalty in principle. However, I oppose it as a matter of policy because we're not right every time (and it's impossible to even get close), and when we're talking about KILLING someone, we *have* to be right.

Answer 4

For truly heinous crimes (murder) it’s more humane and safe. Most shrinks would want to send me to the chair for this over simplification but there are GENERALLY 2 types of people who will commit this crime.

1. Hard core bad person: Knows right from wrong and always chooses wrong cause they like it.
2. Insane: Doesn’t know right from wrong

In case 1 sending them to jail is simple incarceration that will likely result in more crimes either in jail or god forbid in the general public if they’re released.

In case 2 you have an insane person who is capable of rehabilitation. This can really end up in only 2 ways. First they are never properly rehabilitated, ultimately released, commit another crime. Second they could be successfully rehabilitated, understand the graveness of their crimes, and then loath themselves for the rest of their lives.

Death penalty may not be great, but the punishment should fit the crime.

Answer 5

The benefit is revenge/closure for the victims family and the fact the perp will never be on the street again.

If you think the state gets some sort of financial benefit by execution - think again. The cost to "handle" a death row inmate is significantly higher than those not on death row. Private cell, lawyers for both sides......

I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I don't think it's a deterrent, however in the case of murdering a cop, or murder during the commission of another crime I think it's justified.

Answer 6

no. death by law can't be painful, so that takes the purpose of killing someone. Not only that, with the mulitiple apeals available, it's more expensive to contain a deathrow inmate than a lifer.
i think it's more of a punishment to keep someone in a maximum securiy jail where he's alone in a cell except for a half hour a day of walking in circles listening to music. that's the closest to torture. Death is close to letting him escape painlessly...especially when the innmate refuses to admit his crime. Let him live with it in his conscious....in jail
Plus, there's a small percentage of errors in all legal systems. We might, and have done so, putting someone on death row who's innocent.

Answer 7

(where did you get teh avatar pic from? plz contant)

I would have to say as far that the death penalty goes one benefit of it is that if you go on the program you can't revert back to the way you were. If you were sentenced to jail time you could get right out and rob a place. If you were sentenced to rehab you could come right how and do more coke (*cough*lindseylohan*cough*). If you were sentenced to death ... there would be no chance you repeat killing someone ... becase you would be dead ... ... ... unless of course you came back as a zombie. Then in theory you could go back to killing people. Or maybe if you were on trial for haunting someone. But more than likly if you were haunting someone then you were already dead so the death penalty would have no meaning for you.

Answer 8

Yes, for all the reasons explained above. A society must remove those elements from itself that are proven to be destructive, lest they continue to be a drain on society.

A lot of people claim that the death penalty is a slippery slope to mass executions and political exterminations a la Nazi Germany but that's a hard sell.

Blah blah blah, sanctity of life. Nope...pull the switch or hit the button. Problem solved.

Answer 9

I am for the death penalty. I don't look at it so much as a deterrent, but a way to make sure that dangerous criminals convicted of horrible crimes can never walk the streets again.

Answer 10

They will never be a threat to society. They don't have to be feed clothed and given a place ti watch TV and do nothing.
I am for the Death Penalty