could you guys please give me some arguments for & against the death penalty? I appreciate it! tnx!?

Answer 1

The first answer you received (from how_ would_ I_ know) is wrong about deterrence. States and regions with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than those that do not.(For more about this, see the first source listed below)

Other facts about the system-

Most disturbing of all. Risks of executing innocent people--
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't 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 don’t.

We have a good alternative. 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.

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 before trial, continue through the uniquely complicated trial in death penalty cases (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court), 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.

Edit---Note to MG- you are right about the recent studies the first answer mention-= they are junk science. See the first source below. BTW, the death penalty actually costs more than life sentences.

Answer 2

For: We rid ourselves of vermin that deserve to die.
Against: The government can't be trusted to properly administer such a program. The courts are so corrupt that they can't be trusted to do much of anything right. Since DNA evidence has become a factor we've found an unacceptable number of people on death row that didn't do it. I'm for the death penalty if it can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are guilty of a capitol crime such as a room full of witnesses or you have the whole thing on camera. Mostly I'm against it because I don't trust the court system to do it right. The exception I would make is executing these traitorous politicians that are selling us down the river every day.

Answer 3

For: and I don't think they should sit on death row for 18 years either. Even the guy who said he did it and wanted to be executed they appealed several times per the law because he must not know his rights.

Sometimes I think a life sentence without the possibility of parole is more about making them suffer. If we were truly humanitarian we would go ahead and execute them and take them out of their misery. Think about Charles Manson, he's had to be in solitary for all these years because there are hits out for his death, in general population he would be murdered.

And the money of course. Years ago I came up with an idea. Since there are people sitting on death row that we won't actually execute we'll let all the people that don't believe in the death penalty send in their money to support them (wonder how soon they'd change their mind then). If they stop sending money we execute the guy that's been there the longest and on down until there's enough money to support the ones still alive. When all the people that don't believe in the death penalty quit sending money everybody on death row dies. Cruel, yes; practical, yes; and I believe more humane than what we do now.

Answer 4

For : they dont commit the same crime again . It does not cost taxpayers for the rest of this criminals life to keep him on death row . As for against I dont know I am for the death penalty especially in cases against murders of children and women and anybody really . the rape of women .

Answer 5

For: It's cheaper than giving them free medical, food, and lodging for the rest of their lives. although I'd like to know how anyone can prove that each execution prevents 16 murders, sounds like that was either made up, or just junk science. (How can you prove something that has not happened.)

Answer 6

I think the death penalty is much overused, but still has its place for the most heinous of criminals (i.e., serial killers, mass murderers, child murderers, etc...)

Answer 7

For : It stops dangerous people from harming or bothering anybody and the victim of their crime cannot be frightened of them bothering them.

Against : Innocent people could be killed..

Answer 8

According to recent studies, EACH execution prevents up to 16 murders. It's also the only way to truly get justice after a murder.

Answer 9

. . . even if you kill all the guilty, it does not balance the scales if just one innocent person is wrongly executed!