Do you believe in the death penalty?

Question

why or why not?
I have law class and we were discussing it but I want to know what people outside of my school think.

Answer 1

i think there should be a death penalty. What gives a person the right to take another's life? If they kill, then they should be killed. It's justice.

Answer 2

In theory, yes; as other people have said an eye for an eye etc. As well as that there are the cost implications, I don't see why law abiding tax payers should have to pay to keep murders in prison with all the luxuries they may or may not be given.

But in practice it doesn't work this way. Miscarriages of justices will always happen and with the death penalty these can never be put right again. In America people are kept on death row for years but this still doesn't stop innocent people being killed for crimes they haven't committed (and we are also paying to keep them there for all those years anyway!)

Until we can come up with an infalible way of ensuring those who are convicted are definitely guilty then I am against it - if we ever manage to do this though then I am for it!!

Answer 3

I do believe in death penalty...I've done an assignment on this topic as well. Many country have abort it. But still have some are not...and death penalty cost a lot. But i think for some crime, the death penalty should keep on...although is inhuman. The crime they committed might be the same, also inhuman to the victim.

Answer 4

Oh, my sides are splitting. One clod:

'What gives a person the right to take another's life?' and goes on to say we should bring back the death penalty.

Rightly, across Europe and the Western world (one noticeable exception that happens to have higher murder rates than all the rest) the death penalty has been denounced as barbaric and uncivilised. Killing a detained human that presents no threat, irrelevent of what they have done, is barbaric and there are no two ways about it.

We are supposed to live in a society that encourages rehabilitation, not revenge. What sort of message does the death penalty send out to people, young people especially?

The type of people who commit crimes 'worthy' of the death penalty are usually deeply disturbed individuals who don't take it in to consideration, so no, that argument fails.

I actually fear (hypothetically) if we had a referendum on this people could vote in favour of it, but thankfully we don't live according to what the mob wants.

Glad to know I am above a lot of people on here, it gives me an enormous sense of wellbeing.

----
Re: the tax payer's money. Give me a break, prisons aren't overpopulated because of murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Prisons are overpopulated because of larger problems within society and the intolerence of drugs that are less harmful to you than alcohol and tobacco.

Miscarriages of justice, yet another reason we can never, ever bring back the death penalty.

Answer 5

I think your question deserves more than a simple yes or no. 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. Answers should focus on what we have seen about the death penalty system.

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 6

yes I do, but with an imperfect justice system that allows evidence to be thrown out or not admitted, laws against full disclosure (loop-holes), etc. A person has no assurance that their decision for the death penalty is based on truth.

Answer 7

I can argue both sides of the matter, but ultimately I don't believe the death penalty is appropriate for a civilized nation in today's world. It's more of an "eye for an eye" approach, doesn't seem to deter those who are likely to commit the most heinous crimes, and is essentially a vengeful tactic to save money that would have to be spent to keep society's deviants under lock and key for decades. The concept I come back to time and again: if murder is a crime, why is it acceptable to execute someone, albeit "humanely?" To my mind, if we're going to execute someone for their crime, do it publicly, by firing squad or hanging, so the public would have to see the real consequences of so-called justice.

That said, I sometimes reel from the crimes humans are capable of, and assuming mental illness is not involved -- lots of gray areas there, to be sure -- I fully understand the desire to terminate that individuals right to exist on the planet.

Answer 8

I personally am against it but as I am studying psychology, I suppose it would only be logical if I said that.

It's just that... the statistics show that reinforcement under the principle of minimum force have shown better results than extreme punishment of any kind.

I mean... if the person could reform then why take a life to pay back a life? Doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, you have two people dead and nobody ever tried to understand the person who was executed and help them sort their life out.

In the case of sociopaths though... yeah I don't think they can be helped.

Answer 9

It all depends on the circumstances. Life is not black and white however; in the case of serial killers, child molesters...I believe in an eye for an eye.

People like that are wired wrong and in my opinion, have no place amongst the rest of the human race.

Damned if I'm gonna pay for them to sit in jail and be looked after with their three meals a day.....Fry 'em I say, fry 'em!!

Answer 10

yes, i do believe that the death penalty is appropriate for those who have demonstrated that they are incapable of living among law abiding citizens. the only crimes punishable by death are those DESERVING of that penalty. it may or may not be a deterrent, but it is just. as long as you make sure you've got the right person and every effort should be made to determine you do.

Answer 11

Damn right !
I think it would be a deterrent in most cases.
I live in the UK, some of the sick crimes that been taken in this country could possibly not have happened if death penalty was an option.