does society have the right to put someone to death? (deth penalty)?

Answer 1

Society may have the right but I question whether it makes sense to maintain a system of dubious benefit to society and serious risks. You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want to allow the criminals who commit them avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people. I'm listing sources worth checking out.

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 and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty 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 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. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs mount up even before trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and 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 2

the use of the death penalty is a good measure of what the goverment considers valuable. those governments which do not have the death penalty may not have anything of value so the non-use of the death penalty is somtimes considered a high moral stance. in fact, it may be the only thing of value in the society it is in.
that the death penalty is used doesn't always demean the society, but it may be that the higher moral stance has not yet peaked. yet, there are nations who use the death penanlty freely because they lack any moral stance whatsoever and employ it to rid itself of those with whom it decides not to deal with any longer.
while the death penalty isn't really a detterent, it does show a willingness on the part of society to deal harshly, but only if there is no other acceptable remedy to the problem for which the death penalty is given.
until society comes to grips with the whole spectrum of the life/death system, it will never achieve the main stance of allowing people to decide FOR THEMSELVES what is and what isn't a matter of free will, and that there are consequences which must be dealt with by the individual, regardless of what some others may say.

Answer 3

Man's inhumanity to man is often reprehensible and incomprehensible. Some believe that the death penalty is the only way to 'stop' wicked, cruel, murderous monsters who prey on young children; rape, kill or torture people; or do despicable things to people and property.
Should these social misfits be set free to repeat their crimes? Certainly not. Severe punishment is sometimes the only solution. Christians' god said, "Vengeance is mine..." and didn't give Christians the right or privilege of sentencing others to death.
I find it curious that so many "Christians" support the death penalty, yet profess to follow the Ten Commandments handed down by their god - one which specifically states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I don't recall there being a disclaimer that says, "Thou shalt not kill unless you're an insane U.S. President, or unless you're killing a human who was cruel toward another human." All it says is "THOU SHALT NOT KILL". Period. No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
Furthermore, I would think that anyone who supports the death penalty - and, thus, takes it upon himself to 'play God' - must carry a wretched burden inside his tortured soul whenever it's discovered that an innocent person was put to death. I don't understand how any person believes it's 'acceptable' that thousands of innocent women and children have died in Iraq just because we're 'at war'.
I wonder how any of those - who support the death penalty, or who support war - would feel if THEY found themselves on death row, or if THEY were the potential innocent victims of war??? Would they still believe in the death penalty and war - or might they relax their convictions?
Guns don't kill people - cowards kill people, whether by sentencing another human being to death or arbitrarily killing them 'in the line of fire' and considering them 'collateral damage'. Killing is not only immoral; it's cowardly. There is nothing 'manly', courageous or honorable about humans killing other humans, and I believe so-called "Christians" might be in for a rude awakening when they appear before their Lord and have to confess that they supported - or participated in - the deaths of their fellow man. -RKO- 09/07/07

Answer 4

If someone commits such a brutal crime and their guilt is way beyond reasonable doubt, throw the switch....

If a sadistic predator is sent to jail for life without parole, is that person going to change overnight?

Not likely, so he will more than likely commit the same crimes of violence against, guards, fellow inmates.
(don't say that is Hollywood)(just watch MSNBC)

why do we have to put more peoples lives at risk for the sake of keeping this predator alive?

set the standard higher on death penalty cases, then limit the appeals and then turn the switch......

Answer 5

Like john cuey? Who kidnapped,raped and the buried alive the 7 year old Jessica,Raped her for 3 days,placed her in a garbage bag with her teddy bear(how thoughtful) then dug a hole and buried her,maybe group therapy would be better huh?
The death penalty for that scumbag is to easy,he should have his privates cut off and he should be put in a garbage bag with them in his hands and buried alive~Does this answer your ??

Answer 6

No, in reality the greater suitable argument is that that is immoral for a state to no longer do it. there have been many examine on the problem, yet they are often very consistent in outcomes. Executions preclude murders. the quantity varies by learn, in spite of the undeniable fact that that is greater suitable than 5 and below 20 consistent with EXECUTION. Executions have a sparkling deterrent result. in case you opt for an uncomplicated occasion of this, purely examine the homicide fee contained in the U. S. for the time of the era while executions have been placed on carry to the sessions earlier and after. there replaced right into a great spike in homicide while human beings knew they does no longer face severe punishment for it. If we've the thank you to avert innocents from loss of existence, are we no longer morally obligated to apply it?

Answer 7

Yep. If you commit a capitol offense, ie. killing an officer in uniform, killing a public official, a pregnant woman knowing she was pregnant, serial killing, etc. you can be put to death.

Answer 8

i had a essay to write about it and.....
i say no because if they are not really harmful or dangrous to the communityu or nation they should just be in a special jail if its really that serious

Answer 9

Apparently society does, because they do it all the time.

Answer 10

Obviously, we do because we are.