Should the U.S. continue to use capital punishment?

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

The splendid courtroom has desperate that it is not merciless or unusual.. Blacks dedicate a proportionately a procedures better sort of crimes than white. ALL accused of homicide are entitled to a Public Defender at no fee. it is egalitarian. fee isn't the problem. the problem is justice. Are you saying that the lives of those murdered could be bartered for at a good purchase fee? that's the two real the to blame all human beings is released, and lots extra generally through criminal technicalities and prosecutorial ineptitude. Capital punishment isn't approximately deterrence. that's society's approach of protecting persons acccountable for his or her crimes and punishing them. Your opinion that capital punishment could be"rejected in all situations" is purely that, an opinion. BTW: Why not ask this question in crimson China or Russia, the place the pains are quick, and the convicts get a bullet interior the lower back of the top? Your FLAG is showing. Edit: I pay attention the favourite libbie emotional hand wringing, explanation, and opinion. permit somebody you recognize be raped and murdered by utilising the likes of somebody which incorporate Lovelle Mixon and you will sing a various track. humorous the way you so cavalierly pushed aside the mass homicide of hundreds of thousands by utilising your commie leaders. You forgot that murdering thug Castro. and is not it purely like a libbie to prefer to DO THE CRIME yet not prefer to DO THE TIME. not executing murderers is a left exceeded way of condoning homicide. If that's the commie way, save IT.

Answer 3

I oppose it. Unfortunately many people don't ask themselves whether the death penalty system actually accomplishes anything useful for society. This is not about sympathizing with criminals.

For the answer just before mine- 124 people on death row were found to be wrongfully convicted. This is more than 10% of all executions (post 1976, when executions resumed in the USA.) Most of these cases did not involve DNA- it is available in less than 10% of all homicides.

What led to so many wrongful convictions with such high stakes?

False confessions (due to coercion or manipulation by invesigators of mentally vulnerable suspects), eyewitness misidentification, forensic science and government misconduct, informants snitches lying for personal gain or reduced sentences, bad lawyering, unreliable or limited science.

There are many innocence projects across the country. Most, if not all, do their work pro bono (that is they do not charge their clients) and are overwhelmed by the number of requests for help. Few prisoners are fortunate enough to have their cases taken on by innocence projects. Sadly, this suggests that many more innocent people are on death row.

It is also an open question whether the death penalty helps families of victims. Many 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. (Over 50 of the 124 people on death row who were exonerated had already served over a decade. If the process were speeded up we would certainly be executing innocent people.)

Answer 4

Yes, for most that get that far have had years and years of appeals. Most have had a lifetime of crime and will never change if put back on the streets. The return rate back into prison is unreal.
The % of "mistakes" is so low compared to the % in death row that I don't think it is even an arguable statement to use.
There has to be an ending to a person who performs horrific crimes on a victim. We are leaning too much in worrying over the criminal rather than feelings for the victim that went thru such horror before death.

Answer 5

No we shouldn't use capital punishment. It is too likely to kill the innocent. Also we shouldn't even put non-violent offenders in jail. They should be fined, or put into programs where they are monitored and helped back into society. Other countries have done it with excellent results.

Our entire justice system needs to be rewritten. Jail is appropriate for those who need to be removed from society. There are better forms of punishment for every other criminal.

Answer 6

I'm kind of neutral on the issue. I don't think that killing sickos really punishes them, it's only the waiting to be killed. I think letting them rot in a prison that was actually a prison (ie no satellite TV, pool tables, drugs, etc) would be much more fitting of a punishment. But, alas, that would be politically incorrect to never let them out and our prisons are overcrowded as it is...

Answer 7

I think it should because many criminals issue capital punishment on their victims without a jury of their peers.
But I don't see many people standing up to defend their rights as victims.
Anyway, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The US has got to change its focus on keeping people optimistic and ambitious instead of defeated and frustrated. I'm pretty sure that people who are financially oppressed are more likely to commit violent crimes, I'm just guessing though.

Answer 8

No. It should be discontinued. The death penalty only deters the one convicted. It is more expensive to execute someone than to house them in prison for life. The system now makes swift justice impossible, and the family of the victim is "forced" to relive their loss with every new appeal.
Better, in my opinion, to lock them up and forget about them.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

Everyone knows justice is for sale in America. So to kill someone because they can't afford a 'dream team' is disgusting.