system?
2007-10-09 17:18:20 · 10 answers · asked by till 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I feel it gives a sense of closure for the family of the victim
2007-10-09 17:35:39 · answer #1 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good question. Some of the people who answered are not aware that life without parole is available in 48 states. It means exactly what it says. Some are not aware that the death penalty costs much more than life in prison.
As for deterrence, rates or violent crime are higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. (Note to Lighthouse: sources for the stats are listed below.) To deter others, a punishment must be sure, swift and severe. The death penalty is neither sure nor swift.
Some people say that the death penalty prevents angry individuals from taking the law into their own hands and lynching killers. If this is what it comes down to, we are in real trouble.
Incidentally, the death penalty costs much more than life in prison because of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. 124 people on death row have been shown to be wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of homicides, is not a guarantee we won't execute innocent people.
2007-10-10 11:33:00 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You ask an interesting question but haven't provided statistics. On the assumption you are correct - that the death penality has not been so successful - what other kinds of punishment has been successful? Many prisoners are not first time criminals and have been in jail but failed to reform or learn - by their own admissions. Counselling does not help with drug addicts and criminals.
The focus should not lie on the punishment, but on society - what can they do to prevent and deter the committing of a crime? Because society has failed, the legal system must step in, one of the components being punishment, one of the punishments - death.
2007-10-10 00:27:16 · answer #3 · answered by Lighthouse 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sentences are intended to rehabilitate, deter and to punish. Because it is clear that the death penalty does not rehabilitate or deter, the only reason left is punishment.
I often wonder why the remove from the condemned anything they could use to commit suicide?
2007-10-10 00:23:48 · answer #4 · answered by dmontesmom2 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OK look at this just a couple of Weeks ago two murders escaped prison in AZ one bet the crap out of a man and raped a 18 girl i think that if you let and murder that can not be rehabilitate live and he kills again its the juries fault and should be given time could you live knowing a man you could have put in the ground put a innocent in the ground
2007-10-10 00:35:59 · answer #5 · answered by Charlie H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Sentences are intended to rehabilitate, deter and to punish. Because it is clear that the death penalty does not rehabilitate or deter, the only reason left is punishment."
A 4th: to protect society.
There are those than can't be rehabilitated, and are a danger even locked up. There's no reason to keep those people alive.
2007-10-10 00:30:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The problem is that we are WAY TOO relaxed on it ... In Singapore you get the death penalty for armed robbery. We should follow suit and we will be amazed at how well it works.
2007-10-10 00:29:02 · answer #7 · answered by ValleyR 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some people have forfeited the right to live among law abiding citizens, they get the death penalty. There should be more of it.
2007-10-10 00:27:15 · answer #8 · answered by redlegman64 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, it's pretty good at slowing it down... - & the lawyers are making alot of extra $$$ filing Appeals left & right, year after year... :)
2007-10-10 00:27:32 · answer #9 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, the taxpayers do not have to pay for his/her living expenses as they live out their life in jail.
2007-10-10 00:31:29 · answer #10 · answered by dizzkat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋