Who agrees with the death penalty?

Question

if so, why? and if not...why? && is it biblical?
I'm writing a paper argumentatively

Answer 1

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. Here are a few faq's, with sources. Your question deserves more than sound bites based solely on emotion. Feel free to email me if you have related questions.

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, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

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 2

I have very mixed feelings on this. I was very much in support until I had to argue against it in a college debate class. The research made me think.
What maybe the main argument in favor is that it is a deterrent to murders. But that has never been proven. Probably never can be since it would require proving something did not happen - proving a negative effect.
Plus the majority of homicides are not planned out events. They are spur of the moment events. A reaction to an action kind of happening. The heat of the moment, in the heat of battle, kind of events. The perpetrator does NOT stop to weigh the consequences so the death penalty loses it deterrent effect.
The one response mentions how there used to be public executions. History tells us that theft used to be an executable offense. History also tells us that during the public executions, pick pockets would work the ground. Hardly a strong argument that death is much of a deterrent to crime. But I also know that 30 or so yrs ago when plane hijacking was happening all too frequently, a couple of hijackers took over a Turkish flight. The flight had govt agents of sorts on board who over took the hijackers & sliced their throats in front of the other passengers before throwing their bodies out of the plane. There has not been another Turkish flight hijacked since.
A good argument that a swift & certain death penalty is a deterrent. Swift & certain are the key words.
Without a doubt I KNOW the death penalty [when actually carried out] is a deterrent for at least one person - the one executed. We know he/she will never kill another person. And is is not hard to find where prisoners already in prison kill other prisoners, guards, or counselors. So we KNOW we can prevent further murders by execution.
As for it being biblical, not really. Too many people recite "an eye for an eye" in support of the death penalty as biblically inspired. But read the entire passage leading up to the eye for an eye quote. Then also read past that quote. The bible neither supports nor denounces the death penalty.
An argument against the penalty is that it can subconciously tell the public that killing is OK. How can you fight killing people by killing people? If it is such a heinous crime to take someone's life then how can the government take a life?

Where I wobble on my support for the death penalty is, which is worse: A) Putting someone out of his misery by executing them, or B) Making them live the rest of their natural life in a cage with other animals? I have many moments where I think execution is too simple for them. Too easy. It lets them off the hook. Why not stick them in a hole for the next 40-50 years? Which is really the worse punishment?

Economically, it is cheaper to give them life without parole. [This maybe old data since the cost of prison medical care has risen sharply.]

What seems to be a critical issue in the argument is emotions. Just look at the emotions in the responses here. A LOT of people just flat out feel better knowing the bad guy is dead. The revenge factor.

If the execution is carried out in the similar manner as the murder no matter how gruesome or painful, I do believe it would have a much greater deterent effect.

Answer 3

Without the penalty of death, there are people who will, have, and can commit crimes just to live in the prison system. No taxes, you are cared for physically, mentally, medically. Your clothing, housing, and food are provided for you. You have no responsibility except to follow the prison rules. You can even go to school and learn at government expense. What more can a person ask for except freedom.

No matter how serious the crime, without the threat of death the criminal element will just continue to commit more and more serious crimes. And the public will continue to be victimized by these "vermin".

Back in the day when we had public executions, we had far less crime than we do today. And the type of crimes that required death as a penalty were far lighter than todays crimes, when a man can sodomize a child and then murder that child, and only get a few years in prison, why bother having any kind of judicial system at all. We have an upside -down system as well, we have people in prison serving more time selling a drug such as marijuana than a man who has murdered a person. We even put people in prison for harming animals who are serving more time than a murderer.

Now you make the choice! The death penalty or life behind bars.

Answer 4

The death penalty rids our society of the worst. Why would someone want some of these brutal murderers to live and laugh at us while receiving three square meals a day, free medical care at our expense, and recreation? Our justice system is a joke, especially in a state like California where the crooks run the show.

Answer 5

The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is legal if certain guidelines are followed. Yes, I believe in the death sentence over life without parole. It is more efficient to kill a killer then to house him, feed him, and care for him for 60 or 70 years. Think about prisoners with canes, in wheel chairs, and with Alzheimer's disease never to be free and you having to pay the cost of their incarceration and medical bills. Give the death row prisons a reasonable amount of time for appeals and then carry out the sentence. 20 years on death row is cruel and unusual punishment.

Answer 6

Death penalty is a deterrent for the commission of crimes considering that a would be felon will think about the impending fear of death when caught by the law enforcers.

Answer 7

I am for it. A just punishment for horrible crimes. I think the appeals process should be much quicker, no more than 5 years. And I believe no "innocent" person is likely to be executed.

Answer 8

I agree with it. If the crime warrents it then yes KILL them. There is to many criminals that repeat the same crime over and over so why keep this revolving prison system of, in and out....in and out. And letting the tax payer pay the bill to feed them in prison.

Answer 9

Well, I was naive enough to agree w/it thinking it would deter murderers, but it obviously doesn't work. Maybe it would though if people knew they wouldn't sit on death row for so many years.

Answer 10

I do, but it's a little redundant in California. Our death row inmates usually die of natural causes well before they're executed.