2007-09-03 05:58:27 · 12 answers · asked by KENNETH A 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They should be killed anyway, even if its not a deterrent, should be done to save the tax payers money!
2007-09-03 06:05:43 · answer #1 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The deterrent effect of capital punishment 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.’
2007-09-06 01:20:53 · answer #2 · answered by El Guapo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the death penalty was truly a deterrent to murder, there would be little murder in the United States. But we know that isn't the case. One thing the death penalty can do is prevent the executed from committing more murders.
2007-09-03 13:11:00 · answer #3 · answered by OPad 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The death penalty isn't an effective way to prevent or reduce crime and it risks executions of innocent people. Here is some of what we know about the system and a viable alternative, with sources listed below.
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 Babe, previous answerer- check out the sources, below, about deterrence.
Note to Retired Army Major, first answerer- the death penalty costs more than life in prison- see the last source I listed for the reasons
2007-09-03 13:08:54 · answer #4 · answered by Susan S 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Your question makes no sense as the death penalty is used in some, but not all, regions. In the USA, the death penalty is used in 38 out of 50 states, having been reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976.
And in this context the words are "know" not "no", and "has" not "as". Please study spelling with more enthusiasm than you study history.
2007-09-03 13:14:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty has had little effect on murder rates either way. Murderers still figure they can get away with it anyway. The death penalty does drag out the appeals process.
2007-09-03 13:10:26 · answer #6 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I definately think the death penalty should be brought back for Murder. I also Think Bush & Blair should stand for war crimes in Iraq. I beleave in an eye for an Eye. Long term prisoners cost to much. I wonder what the Bill so far has been for Peter Sutcliffe The Yorkshire Ripper, and Rosemary West and the overall cost for Ian Brady. tax payers foot the bill for this.
2007-09-03 13:27:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
bring back the death penalty
2007-09-03 16:54:42 · answer #8 · answered by colin872966 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They should bring back the death penalty... 'A life for a life'.
2007-09-03 14:42:44 · answer #9 · answered by Nails 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no! millionaire murderers like to kill and get away with it anyway!
2007-09-03 13:13:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋