Although I would never condone the acts of the people that receive it, I do feel like it reflects the relationship of government versus the citizen, and that it places government in a more supreme role than it should be. What do you say? For it or against?
2007-10-11 11:11:11 · 18 answers · asked by ? 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I am for it, as long as there is no doubt. I think that people who commit horrific crimes and they have no doubt that they comitted it, then yes we should execute them. Jails are too overcrowded as it is. I watched this Ted Koppel special on the California Jails over the weekend on the Discovery channel. Its bad when 6000 inmates are in a facility that is suppose to house under 1000. They need more programs for rehab. And the 3 strikes law need to be reworked so that it doesn't apply to non violent offenders.
2007-10-11 11:15:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
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.
Innocent people sentenced to death
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
The death penalty doesn't 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 don’t.
We have a good alternative. 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.
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.
The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendents with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?
The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.
Problems with speeding 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.
2007-10-11 23:39:02 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When I was younger, I use to be in favor of it...but now..that I am a parent and think logically about discipline, I really don't see how it makes the state any better than the offender.
Intentionally murdering someone means that if you are tried and convicted, you yourself will be murdered for murdering....I don't know...it' kind of circular logic to me....and who's to say that the individual who kills the killer is okay just because he has immunity for being punished for it.
It really does not make sense to me.
I don't have any other ideas or proposals regarding an alternate means of punishment, but I just don't think the death penalty is a logical means of punishment in itself....
There are other reasons I feel this way too, but they are more spiritual than physical/logical so I don't know if they would be appropriate in a strictly secular debate. :)
2007-10-12 22:58:26 · answer #3 · answered by RaddicalGrl25 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm for it. The only problem is, is that it takes so long to accomplish after appeals and all that garbage. If a subject is innocent and protesting it I understand but when the subject is clearly guilty than get it done and over with.
I don't like the idea of a mass murderer, rapist, or child molester sitting in prison for life using up valuable resources and tax payer dollars.
2007-10-11 18:18:36 · answer #4 · answered by tercentenary98 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think a Life sentence is worse than a death sentence. If you are trying to punish a person, killing them hardly gets your point across. Death is an instant, life is forever. A life sentence takes away their freedom, only leaving them with time to think and deal with their conscience.
2007-10-11 18:17:00 · answer #5 · answered by Sky Guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have two thoughts on it...
1. It isn't nearly brutal enough
2. we don't use it enough
And for all those people who say that it isn't a deterrent, those who have had it done to them will never commit another murder.
And for the crowd who says that it's cruel, isn't it cruel to lock up a person until they die? This way it lessens the cruelty
2007-10-11 18:17:35 · answer #6 · answered by SpaceMonkey67 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm against it, it cruel and lets say someone that's innocent gets the lethal injection and then their proved to be innocent, what then? Completely Shi* Out Of Luck!
2007-10-11 18:15:14 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ purrlvr ♥ 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe we should house those who cannot be rehabilitated for a lifetime such as pedophiles. Of course this population is never sentenced to death unless they commit murder as well.
2007-10-11 18:15:06 · answer #8 · answered by collynn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Against
Why would you kill a killer to prove killing is wrong? And what if you find out in the end that he/she is not actually the killer.
2007-10-14 14:48:18 · answer #9 · answered by mallory b 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Against.
Why should we kill, when we're always trying to prove that killing is wrong?
The death penalty sends across a really stupid message.
2007-10-11 18:14:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋