Should the US continue the use of capital punishment?

Answer 1

Absolutely not.

I was pro-capital punishment for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect 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.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

I agree that it is overused in the State of Texas, where I live. I guess I have mixed feelings on the issue. For some people, like Charles Manson or others who are guilty of multiple homocides, I couldn't care less if they were executed. But for those who murdered a cop in a robbery or something, although it is a terrible act, I think that life in prison would be justified. Here if you kill a peace officer, you pretty much will pay with your own life. It's a capital murder offense.

Thinking about it now, I don't know what I think. Part of me thinks, "Well, you should have known better and not done the crime and killed someone," but the other part of me, my heart, reasons that it's not right to kill people. As men, what gives us the right to take life?

It's a very good question. Certainly thought-provoking.

Answer 4

Only if the quality of the representation is the same. Which it won't be. People with the money to pay an attorney get a different type of "Justice" than those who have court appointed attornys. So my answer is NO
I live in Texas and there is NO JUSTICE HERE.
I learned that when I was in high school years ago.
I sat in on court cases and the people with court appointed attornys went to prison, most didn't even see the attorney.
The ones with their own attorney walked, except for one who had a lot of priors.
I am not a manority person, so my opinion is not based on my race.

Answer 5

No, for two reasons; it is too expensive, and it is irreversable.

Most people who are executed certainly deserve the punishment and are guilty of the crime. However, if just one person who is innocent is killed by the state, that is really one too many. And the federal goverment admits to at least 80 such executions in the 20th century.

The cost of an execution is huge; this is because we've added many checks and balances, such as the requirement for a separate 'penalty phase' to trials; the requirement of an automatic appeal (even if the criminal doesn't want one) and the long trail of other appeals and actions filed by the defendant and civil liberties organizations in most cases.

The fact is, it is just cheaper to lock someone up for life (and I mean 'until they die' - no possibility of parole) than it is to execute someone.

Answer 6

I think that capital punishment should only be used in the most brutal homicides. I dont like texas way of just killing once a week however I disagree with some northern states like indiana having it and not using it.

Answer 7

Yes

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

yes!