One Extreme Or The Other?

Question

All crimes, felonies, misdemeanors, etc punishable by the highest extent of the law (Death Penalty)

Or

All crimes, felonies, misdemeanors, etc punishable by the lowest extent of the low (warning/citation)

so it would be like serial killers and crazy people gettinga citation

or

jaywalkers getting the death penalty.

Answer 1

Kind of silly, really. ALL crimes are punishable to the fullest extent of the law. But it's the fullest extent of the law that applies to that particular crime. So while I sort of understand the irony you are tyring to portray, it's just not worth debating because it doesnt come close to the real meaning of the statements.

Answer 2

Neither extreme makes sense. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty and alternatives 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.

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.

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 3

No.

Ignoring the fact that in the US that would be unconstitutional as a violation of the 8th Amendment....

There are too many wacky laws out there, and too many stupid laws, and too many laws for anyone to keep track of. So, killing everyone who broke any law would result in about a 80% casualty rate.

But the reverse would get interesting -- because if vigilante's knew that they could kill any suspected child molester or any suspected drug dealer and only get a warning --- we'd still end up with about 40% casualty rate by the time all the people with violent tendencies killed each other off.

Answer 4

I would choose neither. BUT if I had to choose one, I would choose the one with the lowest extent of law.