How do you feel about death penalty?Do you believe that it should be used in some specific cases?

Question

e.g.to children's rapists?
what is your opinion on the subject
( we mustnt forget that people senteced to life , they get out of jail in about 17years)

Answer 1

According the case.
Has anyone asked the mothers of kids who have been killed,or of people who have lost their lifes because of paranoics?
After years they are out and they start again..
However, it is bad in both cases to take the life of someone..So i prefere them to be in jail for the rest of their life

Answer 2

Good question.

I'm not sure why this is in Travel >Greece but oh well. I have gone back and forth on this subject for a long time.

I am not in favor of the death penalty unless, there is no doubt that the crime was committed by the person convicted. This day and age there are ways of making sure there isn't any errors but if there is any doubt I don't believe that the death penalty should be allowed.

I do agree that if someone sentenced to life, should spend life in prison, no exceptions.

Answer 3

There is no doubt that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for crime!
I am not saying its easy or correct for men to make such lofty decisions about another life BUT
In Singapore and the UAE where punishments are severe crime levels are FAR lower than in other more '' liberal'' countries.
I lived in Africa for many years and and in South Africa e.g. the moment the death penalty was revoked in about '96 the crime rate spiralled out of control.Unfortunately with criminals if there is no fear there is no caution!
I will give you a horrible example:In S.Africa at the moment there is a belief among many that having sex with a baby can cure AIDS!As a result there are hundreds of reported child and baby rapes every year,many of which result in death.
Should these people be out after a few years of good behaviour?I think not!
Hang them high i say!

Answer 4

I believe that "Life Without Possibility of Parole" is a better option than the death penalty.

First of all, the death penalty is not a deterant to crime. States with the death penalty have no lower incidence of capital crime than those without.

Second, the cost of having an inmate on death row for twenty or so years is higher than the cost of having a LWOP prisoner for more than twice that time with all of the extra security and appeals, etc.

Finally, there is just no going back after after someone has been put to death and hundreds of people on death row have been cleared later with things like new DNA evidence. If we prevent even ONE innocent death, it would be worth it.

Answer 5

48 states now have life without parole on the books. It means what it says. You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to 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. Most people do not want innocent people to be executed.

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.

Edit, for Ian M:Given that wealthy people are not on death row, lawyers who work on appeals of condemned prisoners do so on a pro bono basis. Death penalty appeals do not line anyone's pockets.

Answer 6

I can understand your concern: the current legal system doesn't adequately protect us from those likely to reoffend.

Paedophilia is a particularly disturbing problem as current science indicates it is a deep rooted psychiatric condition that may be incurable. It is possible it may be necessary for these individuals to be segregated from society until such time as medical, psychiatric and pschological science finds an effective 'cure'.

Why, though, do you think state murder is the only solution?

There need to be much better rehabillitation programs during the incarceration period, much better psychiatric evaluation of any violent offender before they are released, and provision for genuine lifelong imprisonment where this is absolutely necessary for the protection of society.

Did you know that the US is the only "Western" country that still has the death penalty? Absolutely barbaric.

Moreover, even supporters of the death penalty do not agree with the execution of the innocent, yet in the first year DNA testing was introduced, 108 people convicted of violent crimes, including 18 on death row, were proven innocent.

It was too late for some and I include two of the most tragic examples:

"Earl Washington, Virginia
Convicted in 1984; Granted an absolute pardon in 2000

Mr. Washington suffers from pronounced mental retardation. In the course of police questioning he falsely confessed to the rape and murder of a woman in Culpeper, Virginia. A false confession is not unusual for mentally retarded persons, who often are eager to please and easily misled by authorities. Although he later recanted, Mr. Washington was sentenced to death in 1984. The victim had lived long enough to say that only one person was involved in the crime. DNA tests conducted long after Mr. Washington's sentencing proved that he was not the rapist. Those test results, together with the victim's statement cleared him. But he was not released. In October 2000, when additional DNA tests again excluded Mr. Washington as the perpetrator, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore granted him an absolute pardon. By then Mr. Washington had served 16 years in prison, 14 of them on death row.

Frank Lee Smith, Florida
Convicted 1985; cleared (after death) in 2000

Mr. Smith was convicted of the rape and murder of a child. After the trial and sentencing the chief witness recanted her testimony. But Smith nevertheless was scheduled for execution. He died of cancer in January 2000, while on death row before the completion of the DNA test results that proved his innocence ten months later."

I'm sorry, but cold hard facts do not have 'a liberal bias'.

Answer 7

I don't accept the death penalty on any occasion. The state as an organised society cannot commit the crimes it is supposed to suppress. Criminality increases where the death penalty exists, actually, because the state practises violence, so the citizens feel free to do the same. Not to mention the chance of a trial error (a guy was inprisoned recently for rape, and he had nothing to do with it, they caught the real guy after a year!)
What I do believe that should happen in such cases, is: a. never let them out of the prison. b. acquit the parents or relatives if THEY kill the person who raped their child. Because I believe the bastard deserves to die, but the state cannot resort to violence.

Answer 8

Tough question.
I believe that some people deserve the death penalty.
However, if even one innocent person is executed under the death penalty, then I believe there should be no such punishment.
I guess my answer is that I do not approve of the death penalty. However, I am almost on the fence on this one.

Answer 9

First of all, I believe that no person has the right to take another person's life.
Death is irreversible, mistakes are part of the human nature, and who can guarantee that a person sentenced to death is 100% guilty as charged?
Let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives, yes, but as far as the death penalty is concerned, I'm against.
Besides I wouldn't be able to approve a method of "punishment" that cost the life of lots of innocent people, that expressed different political views, and fought for democracy, just a few decades ago...

Answer 10

a friend on myspace once asked me the same q. he had started a petition about a guy who had killed a woman with his car and had abandoned her...

I used to feel very strongly about it but lately I've changed my mind for two reasons...
1. who are we o judge who should die and who not???don't we become the same kind of murderers ourselves???
2. sentencing someone to death doesn't bring the child's innocence back, or your loved one who was murdered...

I also recently heard that in the US most people who are sentenced to death are "colored"...if there's such discrimination who controls the people who decide whether someone deserves the death penalty???

Answer 11

I don't believe in death penalty... Meaning, the person is not being punished, since s/he is being killed... I am more for punishment, like serving time in the prison, and having the criminal know that s/he is being punished.

Plus, I don't believe in killing others to calm the rage we have inside. I think that is wrong, since it just makes us feel like the pain is gone, yet it never is, unless we deal with it.