Death Penalty?

Question

Are you for or against the death penalty? and why?

Keep in mind the prices of keeping someone on death row for 40 years.

Answer 1

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 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 imprison 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 2

You may not realize that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Over the last 5 years or so, as more and more people on death row have been proved to be wrongfully convicted, we are taking a new look at how the death penalty system actually functions. A question like yours has received many answers that show that we are finding out about so many things that we were not thinking about before.

Risks of executing innocent people- 124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. 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 defendants 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.

Answer 3

I was pro-death penalty for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the U.S., over 100 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence in the last 30 years. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 4

I agree completely with David. The fact is that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and that has been shown in study after study. The death penalty is nothing more than an antiquated "eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth" concept, i.e., revenge. It no longer has a place in our society. I notice that many people on here who agree with the death penalty believe it should be done "swiftly." I assume this means right after the person was tried and convicted. What those people don't realize is that even in the age of "scientific evidence," people continue to get wrongfully convicted. Believe it or not, people don't always get fair trials, and people charged with a death eligible offense often have inexperienced, ineffective attorneys. Our system of justice includes the right to appeal and challenge a conviction. Without that right, numerous people would be put to death, only to find out later they never committed the crime in the first place.

Answer 5

I used to be for the death penalty, but now am firmly against it. It does cost more because we allow ALL death penalty cases to be appealed to the highest possible court, plus there is a costly attempt to get a stay of execution or pardon from the Governor. What is worse is that not only are we paying millions for each execution, it is obviously not being applied fairly. The racial bias in executions should be enough to put a moratorium on executions, but it's not. Instead, there is a lengthy court battle regarding the method of executions, which is going to turn into a de facto moratorium for the wrong reason. Lastly, over 150 people have been cleared of their crimes AFTER they were executed. That's 150 people who died for no reason to support the death penalty, which I firmly believe continues out of ignorance.

Answer 6

Just curious how many people are for the death penalty, absolutely, without compunction or hesitation, but are against abortion under any circumstance, based on the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'.

I am against the death penalty because its enforcement is inconsistent and unfair. In the individual case where I believe someone is guilty of heinous crimes that warrant death, I am very human and of course would want to see that person pay with their life. BUT unless I was there, I do not know the truth. And because I am human, I know that it is not for me to decide. I want a strong legal system that takes the time to consider the rights of every person involved, that rises above human passion, and vengeance.

Or do you prefer the system in China? Trials are for show, there is no appeal process, and they make you pay for the bullet they put in your head.

Answer 7

I agree with David, who posted previously, and wanted to add one thing. The claim is that jails are for rehabilitating criminals, and the death penalty proves that this just isn't the case; it's just something said to placate people.

What made me realize this was an incident a few years ago when a former gangster, who had completely turned himself around and spent his time advocating against gangs and speaking to urban youths about the dangers and downfalls of joining a gang, was put to death. He'd restored himself, he'd proven that. I don't think he should have gone free - his crimes needed to be paid for... but he was providing a better service in life than he is now, dead.

Answer 8

I oppose the death penalty.

1. The purpose of government crime policy is to protect society, to deter and minimize crime, to protect us from criminals by locking them up. Policies should be evaluated by their effectiveness and cost (and cost effectiveness), not by their psychological or emotional value. Capital punishment just doesn't measure up in this way. It's expensive and has never been shown to be a deterrent, in fact the opposite is evident if you look at all the statistics. Personally I think capital punishment is barbaric and atavistic, but I would favor it if I think it WORKED. But it doesn't!

2. 98% of people executed in the US are indigent, people who could not afford to defend themselves and had to rely on a public defender. If the defendant has money to hire a real lawyer, the prosecutor is not nearly as likely to ask for the death penalty because it's harder to get. People say capital punishment is unfair by race, but it's not race, it's really more a matter of discrimination by wealth.

3. In the last 20 years HUNDREDS of people across the country have been freed from prison, some after decades, by DNA testing. This just shows how imperfect human justice is.
Interestingly, nobody has ever been cleared -after- being executed because when a prisoner is executed, all the evidence for the trial is destroyed!

4. Cost. It costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him in prison for life without possibility of parole. It has to do mostly with all the mandatory appeals. (Of course conservatives say: Well, let's do away with the appeals then!)

Crime has become a political football in the US. Politicians try to outdo each other at being 'tough on crime', so no politician can dare admit he doesn't believe in capital punishment. When Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992 he took time out from his campaign to go back to Arkansas while a man was being executed. He sat in the state capitol, just to show he wasn't going to make that phone call reprieving the man at the last minute. This prisoner was so badly mentally retarded that when he couldn't finish his 'last meal', he asked the guards to save a piece of pecan pie for him to eat later!

Capitol punishment has become an emotional issue. I think it just makes Americans -feel- better! It's a 'feel good' issue! Thnk about that for a minute. 8^P

Answer 9

Yes, i think we might as well get rid of the criminals right away and make more room in jails. I agree with it besides the fact that they just found out that one man wasn't guilty and was on death row. But hey..hey got 4 million for spending 15 years in jail.

Answer 10

For it.

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Dudley Sharp

The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.

The majority populations of all countries, likely, support the death penalty for some crimes (1).

Why? Justice.

Anti death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
and
MURDERERS MUCH PREFER LIFE OVER EXECUTION
99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html

The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2013/02/19/murder-and-execution--very-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html


MORAL FOUNDATIONS

Immanuel Kant: "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.". "A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."

Pope Pius XII; "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

John Murray: "Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life." "... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty." "It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit." (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).

John Locke: "A criminal who, having renounced reason... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security." And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State." (The Social Contract).

Saint (& Pope) Pius V: "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

3200 additional pro death penalty quotes
http://prodpquotes.info/


1) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

======
Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
http(COLON)//www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

Much more, upon request. [e-mail]