The punishment should fit the crime - a life for a life, etc.
2007-09-11 05:00:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by LOL 7
·
9⤊
0⤋
I don't support it. You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want 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.
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 trials, one to decide guilt and the second to decide the punishment) 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.
2007-09-10 16:13:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, even though partically we do not want to pay for lifetime prison sentences and we may feel that someone deserves the death penalty, i believe that the death penalty is wrong. the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" Even though that person has it does not mean that it is morally acceptable for us to kill someone. Also God ultimately should have decision when it's someone's time to go!! Revenge should not belong to humans. Vengence belongs to God alone!! we do not have the right to decide when someone else lives or dies. remember that "two wrongs don't make a right."
This does not mean that I don't understand why people do support the death penalty. I have family and three daughters. You'd better believe that if someone harmed them that I would probably initially be full of hatred toward that someone and i would probably want them to seriously pay for what they have done, but it does not mean that it is right. that means that i would have to spend time in serious prayer asking for the ability to be the best Christian I can be that is not only the ability to forgive because that will be difficult on my own, but also to ask for the strength to reach out to that person and help them!
2007-09-10 11:54:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by daddyz_gurl_emg 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, that's a loaded question if I've ever heard one.
I don't believe in the death penalty at the moment for one big reason, in general: our current criminal justice system is severely flawed.
Governor George Ryan of Illinois commuted the sentence of all the death row inmates, and some had even been pardoned because there had been too many instances where death row inmates have been later proven to be not guilty. Police and prosecutors are NOT immune to corruption. Jurors are not immune to prejudice. Watch the HBO documentary called "Paradise Lost," particularly the second half.
Imagine if you were sitting down for breakfast and the police knocked on your door and asked you to come with them to answer a few questions. They start grilling you about your whereabouts the night before. You know you certainly didn't kill anybody, but because you have no real solid alibi, and some vengeful witness positively ID's you as the person he saw murder somebody, you're arrested and charged with 1st degree murder. Then before you know it, you're sitting on death row waiting to die, or waiting for your attorney to tell you the superior court will hear your appeal. This happens to people in real life. It has happened more than once, but there's no way to know how many innocent people have been actually executed already.
Again, I'm against the death penalty as long as the criminal justice system remains as flawed as it is.
2007-09-10 04:58:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think that depends. If a person molests a child over and over they should be in prison, in my opinion, for the rest of their lives. I know way too many girls who have been molested and raped over and over by the same person... even once is enough to ruin their lives by the way it affects their emotional stability and their relationships with people. Altho... that doesn't seem enough for the death penalty. There are those who have murdered cold heartedly, maybe they should face the death penalty. The government isn't as good at bringing the crime-rates lower like they think they are.
2007-09-12 05:17:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by ϑennaß 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
For those who have taken or caused to be taken a human life or lives and for which there is proof WITHOUT DOUBT, then burn 'em.
Other than that, there have been too many injustly put on death row and later exonerated.
One of the other posters stated that death 'ends the punishment' and that the prisoners in question should be jailed for life.
Punishment is meant to change incorrect behavior. Death is not punishment, it is elimination of a person who acts in an incorrectible and incorrect manner.
Keeping such a person incarcerated for life as a punishment is not punishment, it is vengence.
2007-09-10 04:50:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by credo quia est absurdum 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
You should try posting the question a little more unbias.
I can already tell that you favor the death penalty.
However, i do not believe in the death penalty because i think Prison for life is a harsher punishment. With death, they get off too easily. Bam, they die, their punishment is over.
Also, if we didnt pay for their housing, the government would just find something else for us to pay for.
2007-09-10 04:47:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by AnonyLeslie 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I agree with the death penalty
2007-09-10 04:47:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by skot302002 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Although I am for the death penalty, I'm not so sure I could sentence someone to that fate. I think we let God sort that out.
2007-09-10 06:04:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ron B. 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I would really perfer an eye for an eye but I say if what you did is so horrible then yes death penalty all the way.
2007-09-10 04:47:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Princess J 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I say they're not worth it. The first word in "Death Penalty" is DEATH. So let's get on with it already. All that money could be used elsewhere.....on something worthy.
2007-09-10 04:47:38
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋