DEATH PENALTY- right or wrong?

Question

i need new ideas not essays of the same arguments everyone knows about somthing fresh but all answers are appreciated

Answer 1

NO, for me its completely wrong. in such cases, Death is the LEAST penalty one can get. he/she should be given some other most difficult task, like sentencing to serve the place/city/someother ruined by him/her for the rest of his/her life.

Answer 2

The more I learn about the death penalty, the more I oppose it.

I see two major arguments made for the death penalty: Revenge and deterrence. I’ll address each one separately and then add some additional points below.

Revenge:
The criminal justice system is supposed to be about justice, not revenge. If we execute a criminal out of revenge, we are no better than the criminal. As part of this, people often say that it will give the families of the victim relief or closure. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe this is the case. Conversely, I have seen in many instances where the families expressed remorse and sadness due to the execution.

Deterrence:
The fact is, the death penalty does not work as a deterrence to crime. The Death Penalty Information Center fact sheet located at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf states in part:

· “According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Akers, 1996)”

· “Consistent with previous years, the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate.”

Other Issues:
Permanence – The death penalty once applied is permanent. This would not be a big deal I suppose if we could guarantee that an innocent person never would be executed. However this is just not the case. If you spend any time on the website http://www.innocenceproject.org/ you will see 205 people that were cleared because of DNA evidence. These people spent sometimes 20 years in jail, many on death row for a crime that it was later proved they did not commit. I have always believed “better that a guilt man goes free than to impression or execute an innocent man”. Some people fervently disagree with that statement. I expect the story would change if they were the innocent one.

Costs – Many people believe that executing criminals is less expensive than keeping them in prison for life. Again this is simply not the case. There are two factors that drive up the cost of death penalty cases, the mandatory and automatic appeal process that is built in to ensure the death penalty is fair and appropriate in the case and the additional cost of maintaining a “death row”. The Death Penalty Information Center fact sheet states in part:

· “The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.”

· “In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).”

Racism – There is an imbalance in how and when the death penalty is sought. Additionally, it appears to me that the death penalty is used in a disproportionate number of cases involving minorities particularly blacks. The Death Penalty Information Center fact sheet contains a great analysis of race and the death penalty.

In conclusion, I feel it is time to end the death penalty as I believe it does not serve the interest of justice.

Answer 3

Right & Wrong: The Death Penalty

Pros:
1) Keeps less criminals around.
2) Keeps the fear of the penalty in the back of their mind.
(the "deterrance" - even if that doesn't hold them back, mentally, it at least hinders the progression of their deeds)
3) Less taxes. I sure know I get pissed off seeing how well they get it and how easily - they don't deserve "freedom" in prison.

Cons:
1) Revenge may or may not be a goal to acheive, but who's to say if somebody deserves their "end"?
2) Some people may be falsely executed. The law is horribly old and flawed. Nobody seems to have the power (no matter how much guts) to put and end to the old and start a "New Law".

Views:
I believe that anybody who murders, should get capital punishment - their death. Any crime ending in murder should be returned the same. ALL & ANY other crime is solutable in comparison - those crimes do NOT end in the loss of life/lives. However, self defense is an exemption - if it can be proven, if NOT - they should get life in prison WITH parole and mandatory lie detection testing.

Answer 4

I have no idea what information you already have. But it seems that other answers have mentioned that the death penalty has not shown to be a deterrent, and costs much more than life without parole.

Additional info: the death penalty risks executing innocent people. 124 people on death row have been shown to have been wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it cannot guarantee we will not execute an innocent person.

At least 50 of the 124 death row exonerees had already served over a decade- speeding up the process would guarantee the execution of innocent peopel.

Something else to think about- whether the death penalty actually helps families of murder victims. Victims families across the country, including many who support the death penalty in principal have said that the lengthy legal process surrounding the death penalty prolongs their ordeal and that life without parole is an appropriate sentence.


Life without parole is on the books in 48 states. It means exactly what it says and may actually be harder on the defendent that the death penalty.

Answer 5

So right. And on so many levels. I wish I had a new argument for you... without going into all of the feelings I have on the subject and potentially enduring the wrath of the YA community, how about simply:
Why pay money to house someone for life? What's the point, if prisons are over-crowded and criminals are being set free to re-offend because there is no room? Let's say if your sentence is life w/o parole, you go ahead and have a seat in "the" chair.

Answer 6

This is a much debated question. Some people think it's completely wrong. They think it makes the people issuing the death and performing it on the criminal makes them just as bad. Some people think it's completely necessary and good. It clears out criminals who often have no chance of redemption, and saves money and keeps the public safe. Some people are in between, like me. I think it depends on the degree of the murder, and the reason. What if the person was mental? Or they could just be vicious, bloodthirsty, and pure evil. Often it's hard to tell.

Answer 7

Emotionally, the death penalty is emphatically wrong and I could not see myself making a decision to take a human life. Mentally, I vacillate between the death penalty being right or wrong. I continue to challenge myself with many different scenarios on why it could be right and why it could be wrong to take another human life. The battle continues and I do not foresee a conclusive answer.

Answer 8

The death penalty is right for the right reasons.
This is a conversation that could take hours just between two people.
Death penalty for some crimes that today are just prison time would be a better deterant.

Answer 9

There are very few things that would be wrong in all conceivable circumstances.

But in normal society as it exists the death penalty is wrong, culturally brutalizing, and counter-productive.

Answer 10

Well Suddam Hussein received the death penalty, did you feel like he deserved his punishment?

I sure the heck did. It really is all a matter of what the person did and how you feel about it.