Concerning the Death Penalty?

Question

There are several questions I raise about the death penalty, and this goes for both those who support it and those who oppose it.

1st: The excuse of "if you do x, y, and/or z, you deserve to die". While that can be used to justify the death penalty, it also brings into question, "why do we put limitations on what the state can do to them?" Based on the rationale, we could bring back the gallows, or instate burning, gassing, garroting, or the such "because they deserve it".

2nd: The United States is one of several countries that still have the death penalty. With that said, we're one of the few countries that uses it regularly. Perhaps we could find a medium, a short few crimes that is punishable by capital punishable by capital punishment? Already on the table, as far as I'm concerned, are multiple murder, kidnapping and rape, meaning both serial and repeated offense. Someone can be framed, but not for some 10 different cases, that's unbelievable to me. Also, shouldn't there be

more legislation concerning what age or what intelligence you can be to be executed, to insure that the young and the mentally retarded aren't victim to execution?

3rd: Life imprisonment is a alternative, but, is it a cost-effective one? Is there a way to rehabilitate, and I mean truly rehabilitate criminals? And should we focus on one, as in devoting money, time, and resources to finding out how to truly reshape and reform offenders

Thank you for your time. Please, avoid flaming if you can, but if it is your only possible response, so be it.

Answer 1

I am anti-death penalty.

1) Despite its subjective nature, I think every crime has to be at least evaluated in terms of what punishment is deserving. Nobody contests the fact that a theif deserves to have to repay his victims and serve some time. I think that "what they deserve" line of reasoning is valid. The only real issue here is wether or not death is a deserving punishment which is, as noted above, really a subjective evaluation.

Personally, I am actually inclined to agree that death is a deserving punishment for, at least, murder. However, due to the irreversable nature of the punishment, I am against its use. We can always let a "theif" out of jail if we later find he is innocent, but if you wrongly execute somebody you can't change it back. In fact, if you want to talk about "deserving" punishments, why is the state never punished for wrongful death convictions? The families cannot sue for wrongful death. I can also remember seeing a news story once where I man was on death row for 10 years and after finally proving his innocence, all they gave him was a set of clothes and $5. Does that seem a "deserving" punishment of the state for taking away a decade of man's life and possibly attaching a stigma to his name? The state shouldn't deal out "deserving" punishment if its not going to duly correct their mistakes.

But even going down a different path, I would actually argue that a life sentence is a more deserving crime than death. I beleive that living a life of poor quality is worse than death. Would you rather be eternally miserable than dead? The battle cry of "Give me liberty or give me death!" is still taught in the classrooms, so isn't stripping a man of his freedom worse than killing him? (or are we teaching a falsehood?) When you kill somebody, you take away more than their life, you also harm the victims families and friends, so taking a life for a life isn't a fair trade. The killer still comes out ahead. It may be a bit sadistic, but I say give them misery.

2) I could be wrong, but I thought that murder and rape were the only two capital offenses in the U.S.. I don't want to answer questions about specific legislation such non-murder crimes or who should/shouldn't be subject to the death penalty as I haven't studied that aspect of the subject very much.

3) Life sentences are actually cheaper than execution, but the truth of this statement lies in the semantics. The actual cost of an execution is cheaper, but because death row inmates are prone to file appeals in order to delay their sentence, the "real" costs associated with keeping them on death row are really caused by the expenses of court fees, appointing a state lawyer, and so on. The common arguement is that the government should limit the number of appeals, but in reality this is a violation of the Constitution (5th Ammendment - due process).

Rehabilitation is a very stick issue. Can people rehabilitated? Most people beleive that Salvador Agron rehabilitated himself, so I would say yes. However, his rehabilitation came through religion, a method that might not work on all people (particularly atheists). I would agree with the sentiment that putting money and research into rehabilitation options would be noble solution, but I don't know that much work has been done in this field.

A bigger question that really needs to be addressed is, how many people on death row need re-habilitation? Paradoxically, there are actually more single murder killers on death row than there are multiple victim killers. Also, jailer reports show that these single murder killers are quite often less violent and better behaved that their multi-murder counterparts. The cause for this is that most single killers are often people who have killed a spouse or family member in an isolated fit of rage. There is an emotional (and illogical) bias in US sentencing practices where we feel that killing a loved one is a worse crime that killing a stranger. The end result is that people who are actually less violent prone get harsher sentences. The more violent prone killers have an easier time getting a parolable sentence simply because they've killed a stranger instead of a loved one. Yet these are the people who are more likely to kill a second or third or multiple times and in more dire need of rehabilitation than the "family-killers" who are more likely to end up on death row. And in concert with a comment made above, its these repeat offenders who jailers have bigger problems with than than the one time killers. Of course, this is really a criticism of the sentencing process and not of the rehabilitation process. But hopefully the point is clear that our justice system doesn't know how to properly identify (and therefore protect us from) the more mentally disturbed members of our society. How can we hope to rehabilitate these people if we not spending the time to figure out how to recognize them?

Answer 2

I actual have a concern with all of those circumstantial circumstances in even giving a conviction. I actual have considered too many professional witnesses who've later been shown to be ineffective incorrect. That being pronounced, i think of that a individual like Casey is actual insane and could be stored locked up for something of her years. it could fee the taxpayers a strategies much less money, and albeit she isn't well worth each and every of the attention. by skill of giving human beings like her the death penalty, she retains shifting into into the everyday public's interest. that's a shame. The Bible needed punishment to be quick and then forgotten approximately. no would desire to glorify the crime, no reason to benefit why it replaced into executed. merely punish and pass on. Our society is so a strategies faraway from the biblical thought of punishment, it is in certainty no longer valid. we don't persist with the previous testomony Covenant regulations through fact we've been by no skill area of the previous testomony Covenant. we are a constitutional republic and each state gets to decide for a fashion we could continuously punish.

Answer 3

The SCOTUS ruled that the US will no longer execute juveniles (those under 18 at the time the crime was committed) Roper v Simmons, 2005, and the severely mentally retarded (IQ < 70, demonstrated prior to crime) Atkins v Virginia 2002.

Answer 4

the gallows, or instate burning, gassing, garroting, or the such is fine by me.
multiple murder's ,Pedafiels, kiddnapers,Rapist, Drug dealers, should get any of the above.
It might not be a deterant. But we wouldn't need to build more prisons to warehouse them for ever.
and we wouldn't have to think will they do this again if the get out.

Answer 5

putting someone to death costs the taxpayer more than life in prison ... not to mention the appeals

then there is the fact that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent (no one stops in the middle of a crime and thinks, oh man, they might kill me)

as far as I can see the only reason to have the death penalty is so the family's involved can get closer and a feeling of justice ... which is not really what the death penalty is for

Answer 6

Life imprisonment is a cost effective alternative.

Answer 7

Garroting is an excellent idea for taking out the trash