2007-10-02 07:15:28 · 24 answers · asked by carl 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
societies with a capital sanction have historically also had high murder rates.
any society which wants a high murder rate has every right to apply capital punishment as a means of getting there.
but i'd rather live here.
2007-10-02 07:20:23 · answer #1 · answered by synopsis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How can it ever be just for us to maintain a system of dubious value in preventing or reducing crime while risking the execution of innocent people.
124 people on death row were already shown to have been wrongfully convicted. DNA can't guarantee we won't execute innocent people because it is available in less than 10% of all homicides.
Murder rates are actually higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it.
We have an alternative. Life without parole is available in 48 states. It means what it says and costs much less than the death penalty. Some people believe it may be harsher than the death penalty.
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison because of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.
The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of victims. Many have testified before state legislatures that the
drawn out process prolongs their pain and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
At least 50 of the 124 wrongfully convicted people on death row had already served more than a decade. Speeding up the process will guarantee we execute innocent people.
The death penalty doesn't apply to people who commit the worst crimes, but to people with the worst lawyers.
2007-10-02 21:59:43 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pre-meditated murder. I don't see why someone who killed someone else should be "rewarded" with free room & board, cable tv, fresh air every day, being allowed to visit with their loved ones, etc. while their victim is dead and the family is grieving.
I wonder if it be more of a deterent if the death penalty was carried out against the defendent in the exact manner his/her victim was murdered. I mean, why are we concerned about "cruel and unusual" punishment to the convict? Has a convicted killer ever considered the least painful way to murder his/her victim?
2007-10-02 14:37:12 · answer #3 · answered by kaz716 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I favor it mainly for acts of premeditated murder (particularly where the victim is tortured), and justify it on the basis that he who takes a life forfeits his own.
That said, I think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule should apply. No one should be sentenced to death unless it can proven that he or she did, in fact, commit the crime. If there is any doubt whatsoever, the death penalty should be ruled out.
2007-10-02 14:24:38 · answer #4 · answered by jeffersonian73 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone maliciously and intentionally takes the life of another without provocation, then their own is forfeit.
I have issues with the way the death penalty is administered in the US because I have issues with the adversarial justice system which is more intent on "winning" than on "finding the truth".
2007-10-02 14:25:34 · answer #5 · answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IMHO. Never.
We commit the same act that we are accusing the criminal of.
Also, exactly how sure are you that you got the right person? There have been plenty of incidences of people on death row being found innocent. No one checks on those already executed.
I have no problem of life without parole. I have no problem in using convicts as a labor force to contribute towards their up keep and return something to society.
2007-10-02 14:23:20 · answer #6 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Never. The majority of murders are spontaneous actions; how will murdering the murderers stop this from happening. It has been shown that victims' families do not get closure and as a prevention it doesn't work.
2007-10-03 07:48:52 · answer #7 · answered by boogaloo1962 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF we changed our judicial system from one based on punishment to one based on rehabilitation-I would say- Never, The states should not be in the business of murder. For those who cannot/will not be rehabilitated such as adults who prey on children, serial killers, sociopaths, I would put them all on uninhabited islands; (Alcatraz anyone?) and let them make it there among their own kind. Even Jesus said it would be better for a man to hang an albatross around his neck than to place obstacles in front of children.
2007-10-02 14:41:42 · answer #8 · answered by lizzie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that when a person commits murder for play, robbery or when it was planned, then the death penalty would be in order. I would also consider it for child molestation, rapists and people who mutilate a persons body after they have killed them.
2007-10-02 14:32:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you voluntarily take another life for no other reason than to just do it.
Now it should be applied in this manner.....
Lock them in an air tight room.
In this room there are methods of extinction.
A gun with one bullet
A knife
A cyanide capsule
An open electrical outlet
A paper and pencil
A Bible.
The person can write their last apologies, come to Jesus and have their choice of death.
Bullet, knife, electrocution, chemical and if they wimp out on themselves they will just pass out due to lack of breathable air.
They go in and do not come out. They are the cause of their own demise so no one has to feel guilty.
Get A Grip
2007-10-02 14:24:57 · answer #10 · answered by Get A Grip 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋