"A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment." Do you agree or disagree?

Question

Just give general ideas and arguments for and/or against this argument. If you could please cite your information, where applicable.

Answer 1

Disagree. A just society must bring justice to anyone who has been victimized. The fact is that there's a limit to the kind of aberration that an individual is allowed to commit.

Many find it hypocritical that some are for the death penalty but not abortion. Let me put it in black in white: Children haven't committed any crimes in the womb so they deserve a chance at life. Maniacs that commit unspeakable crimes have proven who they are and have no business living in any society. In essence, they've had a chance and have destroyed lives with it. That said, they should just make peace with their maker as they should be sent to meet him expeditiously.

If you want to see a great argument for the death penalty, see the link below. In January of 1992, 4 teen aged girls tortured, molested, mutilated, and ultimately murdered a 12 year old girl by burning her alive. Although they were given up to as many as 60 years in prison, 2 are already out and the other 2 are sure to follow. This is a definite argument for the death penalty.

Answer 2

I agree. I'm glad you asked for information. The issue is much too important for short sound bites. Here are some facts about the death penalty system, with sources below.

Risks of executing innocent people - 124 people on death rows released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicidesand its not a guarantee we won't execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable (key word is 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 don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Its sure, swift and rarely appealed. Its less expensive than the death penalty.

Death penalty costs. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start mounting up even before trial, continue through the uniquely complicated trial in death penalty cases (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and appeals.

The death penalty doesn't apply to people with money.
Its not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding 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 3

There is a place for the death penalty as a form of punishment in society for certain crimes ,that have circumstances which make the crime unique,
Such as if a murderer is proven beyond all doubt and there are eye witnesses & was acting with out provication & or for reward to the act then it could be a case for this form of punishment,
Except if the murder was provoked some how then it should be a jail term.
Cases where it would be dangerous to society to keep a criminal locked up in case of escape or future reliese or impossible to rehabilitate is another one

Repeat offenders rapists ,child molesters ,
Acts of terroism is another if proven beyond all doubt

The reason the cases must be proven beyond any and all doubt is there is no going back once the crimnal is dead if the evidence or witnesses police got it wrong

Answer 4

Agree. I was pro-capital punishment 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 5

I disagree, but only in cases where the public safety would be endangered by allowing the individual to live. For your common cases, I feel the death penalty should be put to sleep. My reason is that in most cases we have no real idea wheter the covicted party is, in fact, guilty. We are releasing people from death row due to exhoneration by DNA evidence a lot these days. That's pretty scary. What do you do if you find out the person was innocent afterward? Un-execute him? Not likely. Money could be paid to the family, but that doesn't help the executee much, no?
Supposing the person is guilty guilty guilty beyond any shadow of any doubt, and keeping the person alive would not affect public safety, I feel that this individual should not be executed. My reason for this is that I believe in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. Confused? I'll explain. "Eye for an eye" is not a call for veangance, rather for mercy. In the times of Christ, it was common that if you put out the eye of someone of higher social status than you, that person could have you killed. Period. Christ came along and said "No, no, no. Not a LIFE for an eye, no more than an Eye for an eye, if even that". We, as a supposedly Christian nation, would do well to pay a little more attention to the teachings of Christ, which (as a surprise to most) center on mercy. It also does to remember that Christ, in His time, was sentenced as a capitol felon.

Answer 6

I disagree. I quite have a brilliant source that i'm hoping you will intently examine in its completely (proper below). So I won't bypass into too lots element right here. just to prepare you for the examining however, the question is quite one approximately determining the right purpose of punishment. the article that I proper proposes 3 rationales given for punishment: restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation. the author is going directly to argue that restitution is the sole purpose that's not arbitrary or barbaric. The question of punishment (capital or in any different case) lies between the guy convicted of the crime and those injured by skill of the crime (alongside with next of kinfolk). i'm hoping which you take excitement in the examine! Addition: I examine the different comments that have been written at a similar time as I hunted for my link and drafted my reaction. a basic criticism is the risk of executing an harmless guy or woman. I agree that it quite is a danger and is motives why the U.S. justice device has traditionally observed the philosophy of "innocence till shown responsible". That blunders are made even interior the main suitable device and that our device seems to be drifting in direction of greater harmless convictions (a by skill of-made of a monopoly on justice) are separate subject concerns. they don't replace the philosophical foundation for my reaction. despite the fact that, those components could actual be considered while sentencing.

Answer 7

Totally disagree. The Bible says, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The Bible also levies a death penalty for many of the "sins" of the Old Testament.
Having said that, it costs we taxpayers on average $40,000 per year to keep one of these convicted criminals alive, fed, and in prison for one year. That is more than the majority of Americans even make in a year and a lifestyle upgrade for the majority of criminals. It only costs about a quarter to electrocute, a couple hundred for the drugs to lethally inject, a couple of dollars for a bullet, etc. Yet our legal system allows someone on death row to launch numerous appeals and extend their life by years, which we pay for. It just does not make sense. With the exception of glaring poor representation by defense, DNA evidence which exonerrates, or lack of a fair trial, there should be no appeals process. Additionally, this should no be a matter for states to decide. The death penalty should be a Federal Law enforced by the state govenment. A universal form of execution should be instituted for all states. And finally, the number of appeals should be reduced or a time limit reduced to prevent the ridiculous number of foundless appeals the judicial system is being inundated with.
You may not agree with the death penalty, but the relatives of the victims probably do. What would you say to a relative of a victim that finally got closure and some sense that justice was carried out for the suffering endured by a lost loved one at the hands of the driminal that was executed? Would you get on you high horse and try and defend your position to them as well? I'm sorry, but this issue is not about your liberal ideals and sense of injustice, it is about using the death penalty as a deterrent and being fair to the victim who can no longer mete out justice on their own behalf.

Answer 8

I (sort of) disagree. In a just society, nobody would ever get convicted of crimes that never happened. Nobody would be falsely accused for someone else's crime, and nobody would be given a heavier sentence than his crime called for. So, in mystical "just society" land, I'm all for the death penalty.

We, and every other society on earth, however, don't live there. All the things I listed above happen every day. So, for real life society, I oppose the death penalty. It's better that a hundred murderers survive in prison than 1 innocent perish.

Answer 9

I think the death penalty should be used only on prisoners who are convicted in an absolute manner. (confession, caught in the act, etc.) This does not include hearsay or an incarcerated "witness". When the conviction is absolute, there should not be years of appeals, just do it. The death penalty should be done in the manner that the prisoner did his crime. If slow and painful, show them how it felt to their victim. Child molesters should be included.

Answer 10

Some people are not fit to ever be a part of society again. Their crimes are so horrific, they cannot be considered a part of the human race. Instead of making the tax payers support them for the rest of their lives, the death penalty should be used.

It has also been proven that the death penalty is an effective deterrant. There was a study earlier this year. Don't remember who did it.