Crime and murder rates are higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent.
I believe that you don't have to excuse brutal crimes and to want the people who commit them to avoid being harshly punished to ask whether the death penalty prevents or reduces crime. You don't have to oppose the death penalty to be concerned about the risk than innocent people may be executed. (Since the mid 1970's 124 people on death row were 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.)
Edit: for Pilgrim Life without parole is available in 48 states. It means exactly what it says and does not make any assumptions about whether criminals can be rehabilitated.
The death penalty also costs much more than life without parole, because of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.
2007-10-03 17:12:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It helps.
It eliminates the possibility that the offender will commit another crime.
I don't like the idea of killing someone for a crime, but . . .
I also don't like crime.
It would be real nice if every criminal could be rehabilitated, but it's just not reality.
Only 5% of child molesters do NOT commit another child molestation when released from custody.
That seems to be the most compelling crime, because rates of recidivism are lower for other crimes, but it's just not worth the gamble if a single child has to endure the pain and anguish of a pediphile attack.
I don't think penalties for crimes should be any worse than what is prescribed in the Bible.
.
2007-10-03 09:47:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm against the death penalty. Historically it has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime and the possibility of error, of executing an innocent person, is simply too great. It also makes our justice system less about justice and more about revenge.
2007-10-03 09:51:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think if the deterrent was death, idiots might thinks twice before killing another human. I really don't see the point of our taxes paying to keep proven/confessed murderers alive in over crowded prisons. Free up the space get real on petty crime/drug crime, amd make it real punishment. there is no real deterant for anyone thees days. My Father (God bless him) used to say bring back National Service. Now theres food for thought!
2007-10-03 20:38:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Zeb G 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
For. It is a deterrent; it gives justice. Can you imagine the terrible crimes commited daily, the people are unlikely to be arrested, if arrested, they are very likely to walk away or serve a minor sentence. Where is the justice in that?
Let's have justice; when an atrocious crime is committed, give the death penalty.
2007-10-03 09:54:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
as a consequence of the specific crimes/criteria, it is an appropriate punishment and may keep some people from acting on impulses to commit these crimes... it will not effect unrelated crimes like robbery, assault, etc.
2007-10-03 09:50:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by kinn2him 3
·
0⤊
0⤋