Death Penalty...?

Question

To be or Not to be... please say why? or why not?
Are you for death penalty or against it?? Thank you!

What do think about life imprisonment instead?

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

I think that life without parole makes more sense.
Here are some practical reasons why life without parole makes more sense, with sources listed below.

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 people sentenced to death were found to be 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. Fewer 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 (including staffing)

Answer 3

im against it for many reasons.
#1. Its not about justice, its about closure. If it was truly about justice, any evidence ever found after a person has been executed, that could prove his innocence, would force the case to be reopened.
#2. since 1976, over 218 people have walked off death row free, because of their innocense.
#3. two wrongs dont make a right. I learned this in kindergarten.
#4. State attorneys want a conviction on their records. take the time to read up on some dp cases
there was a case in texas, where a woman was raped and murdered, and although there was dna present, it did not match the man who was ultimatly executed for the crime. that is appaling that a system could do that.
look up the Rolando Cruz case.
after cruz was sentenced to death for killing a 10 yr old girl, a convicted child molester claimed he alone committed the murder. the judge reopened the case, but denied the confession from the convicted child molester into evidence.
after his second trial, a police officer admitted he lied about what cruz told him..
cruz was later executed proclaiming his innocence from day 1.
justice? you have a cop admitted he lied, you have a convicted child molester claiming he committed the crime, you have judges that refuse to enter evidence that proves someone is innocent...

Answer 4

I disagree with the death penalty. Ending someone's life isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Could they be a danger to other prisoners? Yes, that's why if they commit a severe crime they should be kept away from other prisoners, or at least be kept under a higher watch. Do they make us pay for their stay in prison? Yes, but really it costs us very little. I think they should pay for their stay in prison and if they don't have the money then they should work it off, but either way, it isn't that much of a burden on you. So I'm against the death penalty. The death penalty isn't about living in harmony it's about making yourself feel good.

Answer 5

Yes I believe in the death penalty. I think some crimes are so heinous that the penalty fits the crime. Imprisonment does take away alot of freedoms but these days inmates can obtain college educations funded by the state when their in prison when the people they have murdered can no longer breath and express their soul.

Answer 6

For it in most cases. People that commit horrendous evil crimes that involve murdering and torturing people and its proven by dna and witness or confession I say rid the earth of these people it is a deterrent, that person will never do that again. I am liking the same for repeat child molesters and repeat rapists especially when they kill the victim. I dont like the prison for life because it is very expensive for taxpayers and a burden on the prison system. Those monies are better spent rehabbing less violent and non violent prisioners.

Answer 7

I try and be against it because I know at least for me, only God should decide when a life should be allowed to end. But then I'll read about something so horrendous that I can't help thinking this guy deserves it. Its the ones without feelings of guilt or remorse that almost seem to take pleasure in what they've done and the pain they cause that really test my feelings on the matter.

Answer 8

definitely against, for many reasons:
1. It does not diminish criminality. It is proven that a country with death penalty has more violence, because in the mind of the criminal violence is justified as even the state murders people.
2. it is irreversible, in case of a mistake. Many times an innocent man may go to jail, but released later. If he is killed...
3. It is plain cold blood murder. If we don't accept killing as an act of our society, we cannot perform it either. We can lock up the people we don't want in our society for ever, but an organised killing is like you or me is the executioner. I don't accept this role.
4. It is the cruellest act of any society. Even to the worst criminal, an execution is the cruelest thing for the conscience of humans. This is why societies with the death penalty face more and more cruel crimes, instead of vice versa.
5. I would accept, in some very cruel crimes, that if the relatives of the victim attack or kill the murderer, they should be acquitted by the court afterwards. It is their right to be so angry, it is not the right of the organisd society to act as an angry mob.

Answer 9

I believe it should be used/considered for certain instances with certain restrictions......

It shouldn't be considered in the murder of 1 adult, unless it is very heinous

- It should only be for adults
- The murder of someone who is younger 18 years of age, below 15 it should be instantly considered
- The murder of 2 or more people (it is more of 2 eyes for an eye)
- The confession must be videotaped

Maybe a referendum for the state/province, if the jury cannot come to a complete conclusion.

Just my ideas to help

Answer 10

Murder is a terrible thing no matter what and should always be treated seriously. But it happens in all sorts of different situations, I don't think you can make one law and make it apply to an abused child who kills their father in self-defense or some who casually murders someone to rob them of their wallet or someone who tortures and mutilates people. One law can never be right for every one.

We should be merciful but firm. Rehabilate those who we can and imprison those who cannot control themselves. But subjecting killers to the death penalty is murder. Once we accept and advocate murder as a solution to our problems, we become as bad as the people we are condemning.