should the death penalty be reinstated for certain crimes?

Question

what do you lot think and for4 what kind of crimes should it be used

i think in crimes such as murder with concrete evidence t should be used

perhaps it would act as a deterant and stop others from doing it what do you lot think

whats the best way to deal with murderers and child molesters let them live like kings with big tellys i think not

perhaps if prison wasnt such a breeze there would be less violent crimes prison should be as hard as possible for these kind of people

if not the death penalty then harsher sentences with basic rations

Answer 1

No, we shouldn't kill people under any circumstances. It gives the message that in certain circumstance murder is right, it is murder whatever way you look at it. I believe life should mean life though and that prisons should be toughened up and not be the holiday camps they are at the moment in the UK.

Answer 2

I live in Michigan where there is no death penalty. It may not really do all that much to prevent crime because nobody that does a crime intends to be caught. On the other hand it DOES guarantee that there will be no repeat crime by the same person. I'm generally not in favor of it because it is applied so unevenly. For the thousands of men executed there have only been a handful of women that have faced the death chamber. There is also the problem of errors in the legal system. Look at how many people were convicted of crimes that were later proved innocent when DNA testing came into use. There are some crimes that are so horrendous (like the little kids that get raped and murdered) that your gut feeling is that they NEED to die, but until they figure out a way to be absolutely certain they have the guilty party and they apply the same penalty equally to everyone, it's use is only one notch above state sanctioned murder.

Answer 3

It is common Knowledge that eye for an eye is not a successful deterrent to violent crime. Also common knowledge that there are enough bleeding heart liberals complaining about the rights of the convicted to clog the system with red tape enough to span the globe.

I can understand the part about if there is a death penalty, someone must administer it. Which in some peoples eyes makes the administrator the murderer. But I say if you murder someone, rape them, or maliciously terrorize them, and you are convicted by a jury of your peers that you have forfitted you rights as a human being and should no longer have claim to any special treatment. That includes a 30 year stay with cable TV education, clean facilities and 3 square meals.

I say you put them all in a big cage like animals and who ever lives the day, gets the oppurtunity to do it again tommorrow. One way in, one way out. And better....televise it, vegas would cash in on bets, Wrestling fans would pay to view, and the prison system would be paid for by those that pay to watch the carnage. No more wardens to pull a switch....let the other killers do the killing. I think if people knew, there are no appeals, there are no excusses, no medical care, no food, no special treatment, they would think twice about there actions.

It's hard to live in the world today. Some people know that killing will get all the choices in life made for them. prison. They don't deserve as much.

Answer 4

I hope that people in the UK will take a look at the experience of the USA with the death penalty. You don't have to excuse brutal crimes or allow criminals to avoid very harsh sentences to ask whether it prevents or reduces crime or if risks executions of innocent people.

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, one to decide if the defendant is guilty and the second to choose the sentence, 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 5

I would impose the death penalty for crimes against children involving murder/rape/paedophilia. Not hanging or the electric chair - lethal injection or gas sounds about right. BUT the police should take the time to get it RIGHT - DNA, witnesses, etc - no ****-ups like the Guildford Four, etc.

People keep harping on about how the Death penalty isn't a deterrent in the U.S. I'm convinced the reason for that is the length of time the scum can spend on Death Row. If they were put to death sooner it would be a much better deterrent.

I also think our government should stop making prisons so much like hotels. Criminals are inside to be PUNISHED - NOT for a holiday. There's too much emphasis on the criminal and not enough on the victim. CHANGE required URGENTLY.

Answer 6

Keeping criminals in prison costs the tax payer a small fortune every year, especially now with very few prisons offering the prisoners anything productive to do or the prisoners contributing to society in anyway.
In some ways I think it should be reinstated for some crimes, murder, paedophiles, the absolute worst of the worst. But then in saying that most judicial systems need a complete over haul and for a standard sentance to be given to specific crimes, like here in Ireland for example there should be a standard sentance for rape, with murder most do not do the full life sentance. so if the death penalty was to be reintroduces the whole judiciary system would need to be looked at and agreements made on standard sentances.

Answer 7

As an American, I've seen the death penalty at work up close and no, I can't recommend it to any country and I wish we'd do away with it.

Life at hard labor is appropriate enough, but no court or state should play God. Plus, you'd be amazed at how many convicted murderers on death row have been released because DNA evidence later showed that they were innocent. It really makes you wonder how many innocent people the U.S. has put to death over the years. What can you call the execution of an innocent person except murder?

Unless we can be 100% beyond even the slightest shred of a doubt completely certain of guilt, we shouldn't even be discussing it.

Answer 8

No it should never be reinstated, sure did not stop any murders are any other crimes when it was in. lets not forget less than two hundred years ago a child could go to the gallows for stealing an apple. didn't stop stealing are any crime ever. look at all the miscarriages of justice and ask yourself. would i like if my brother are sister was executed and was innocent. there was evidence and all for them so what makes it certain that the law would be not making innocent men and women pay for crimes they did not commit. police will always look for someone to pin a crime on and get a fall guy.

Answer 9

Not only should it be reinstated, but it should be used a lot more frequently...

If someone is convicted by trial of; Murder, Rape, or Child Molestation, the convict should be sentenced to death, and soon after conviction. There's no need to let them sit in jail, earning a college degree on our tax dollars just to be put to death.

No violent criminal should be given a second chance in society, and no tax dollars should be wasted keeping them fed and educated in prison.

I'm sure any of you could think of at least a hundred better uses for our tax dollars.

Watch what happens to the crime rates if something like this ever pulls through....

Answer 10

I think so yes but there should be less time for appeals and things the average time spent on death row is 11.5 years by that time they will be glad it's their time. what things are there about now to deter crimes ASBOs big wow tagging hmmmm lets all go do drink and drugs in the house and terrorise the neighbours someone needs to wake the chuff up and do something now with every generation born the crimes are getting worse and the punishment most definatly doesn't fit

Answer 11

yes it should be reinstated for paedophilia and murder.i believe in an eye for an eye and although paedophiles don't necessarily take the physical life of a child, the mental life is taken and that is just as bad.
The sentences which are dealt to these specific crimes do not act as a deterrent and something needs to be done to try and rid the nation of such heinous crimes.