Do you believe in the death penalty?

Question

I'm not sure. My thing is, yes some people sould die for what they did, (they have all though out history) but do we as humans have the right to take away life? I don't think so.

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 people who have been 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

Some people do deserve death for the things they do, however there is always the problem of killing the wrong man (or woman). However, this is greatly reduced in these times with DNA evidence etc. Also, I think that if people are going to have the death penalty, it should be quickly carried out. They should not spend years on death row, wasting the publics tax money.

However, as you say, do we really have the right to take away life. Some of these criminals do murder, and that is wrong, but in some cases killing them would not be seen as a punishment by the criminal, more an escape. In these cases they should spend life in prison.

I think that each case should be judged seperately, rather than saying "all murderers have the death penalty" or something. In this way, the punishment will 1. reflect what the person has done, but 2. reflect the person. If they want to die, don't let them, as the death penalty may be seen as a reward, rather than a punishment.

Answer 3

The death penalty neither prevents nor reduces crime and it risks executing innocent peopel. Several answers you have received are mistaken about what DNA can do and about deterrence. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, 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 (key word reputable) 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, mostly because of the legal process. Anytime the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start to mount up even before a trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and subsequent appeals.

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.

Answer 4

IF we could be absolutely sure of someone's guilt then there might be a case for it sometimes but that is very rarely the case.

There have been quite a lot of miscarriage of justice cases in recent years and many of those now either proved or presumed to be innocent would have been executed had the death penalty been available at the time they were convicted.

I know a lot of those clamouring for the death penalty will say "but I could never be suspected of something like that". The problem of course is that if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or you say the wrong thing you quite easily COULD be suspected of a crime and might well be convicted of it.

The death penalty is reather final and it's not much use being pardoned after you've been executed.

That's why I'm against it's re-introduction.

Answer 5

The death penalty no longer exists anywhere in the EU. UK abolished it decades ago.

When we had a death penalty here in UK, far too many people got hanged who should not have been hanged.

I would draw your attention to the hanging of one Ruth Ellis, the last women ever to be hanged in UK. She was found guilty murder, in that she shot her boyfriend dead. She did this after a long period of time during which he had intimidated her and gone off with other women etc.

Ruth Ellis was driven to it and in the minds of the British public her death was an act of brutality by an uncaring state. The people then fought a long and hard campaign to abolish the death penalty.

There is also the case of Timothy Evens hanged for murders he did not commit. An absolute disgrace.

No. Having the death penalty solves nothing. It does not reduce crime and certainly will not bring an end to murder.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 13 | 1955: Ruth Ellis hanged for killing lover Convicted murderer Ruth Ellis is hanged at Holloway Prison, London.
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/13/newsid_2745000/2745023.stm

Timothy Evans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOn 16 November 2004, Timothy Evans's half-sister, Mary Westlake, started a case to overturn a decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer ...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

Timonthy Evans and John Christie Case details and links to information on Timothy John Evans, Christie's killer neighbor.
http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/evans_christie.htm

Answer 6

If they can perfect resurrection then I can go along with it but until then, there have been too many wrongful killings. It would be far better that killers were made to stay in jail for life.

It is truly ridiculous that someone like Ronnie Biggs has the key thrown away for being essentially a thief but a killer can be out in a matter of a few years.

I know that in the commission of his crime it shortened the life of the train guard but it was not intentional and anyway I think any discerning person will get my point

Answer 7

I am on the fence about this issue, also. I don't believe that we have the right to take away life, but then again, murderers take away innocent lives, molesters harm innocent children. Most cases call for the death penalty: i.e. murder, child molestation, etc. But honestly, I think death is too easy and too humane for these animals that commit these heinous acts. They get injected with a poison that kills them almost instantly. Doesn't really seem like justice, does it?

Answer 8

Yes, I don't feel however that every murder should be met with capital punishment. For example, a women or a man who has been the subject of domestic violence for numerous years, snaps then accidently kills their spouse in a frenzied retaliation, should not face the death penalty for their actions. On the other hand, particularly with the senseless killing as a result of spiralling gun and knife crimes in mind, those who just kill for the sheer hell of it then yeah. Also I think there should be a four strikes and your out policy when it comes to violent criminals, if they continue to offend even after numerous convictions, then what place will they ever have in society that is a conducive one, none!

Answer 9

Without a single doubt !!
We, as a SOCIETY most definitely have that right
By alot of various laws -- as by way of Biblical standards as well !!

The death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes and should be carried out swiftly once handed down !! Although I do believe in an appeals process -- I am a firm believer that it should be limited to a three petition limit of appeals -- after that -- there should be swift and certain justice !!

If people were to simply be able to witness some of the absolute horrors left by these rabid dogs -- there would be considerably more people who would be in favor of doing the absolute best by the victums and society in eliminating these animals as soon as is humanly possible !!!

Answer 10

I say yes...

Although I don't think criminals normally reason this stuff out:

"Let's see, if I break x law, I get prison. If I break y law, I get the death penalty. I won't break law y, but I will break law x."

See...it's not really a deterrent for the criminally stupid...but it will get rid of them permanently.

My one problem is this: it seems difficult to warrant the death penalty if a person is convicted under questionable circumstances. In that case, why are they even in jail...people say don't use the death penalty because someone is innocent...well, they shouldn't be in jail in the first place. That, in itself, is a travesty.