Prisons flooded, no space for violent rapists and paedophiles, is it time to start cutting the number of criminals down?
2007-10-24 12:02:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Before you make up your mind, take a look at how the death penalty has worked in the United States. 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.
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.
2007-10-27 17:06:11 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
my word, no, lol! How uncivilised...
that's like saying "people keep throwing crisp packets in my garden, i've been keeping them in a bin but it's full now! Should i start burning them?"
Erm... NO!?!?! Why don't you just stop people from throwing crap in your garden?!?!
Weird analogy i know, my point though is that bringing back public execution is a violation of the most mandatory human rights and is nothing more than a bandaid solution.
The sacrifices that we make as an apparantly leading society would not out weigh the benefit of commiting such attrocities!
America is the only western "civilisation" that still engages in this out dated barbarisim... You'll find it hasn't helped their crime stats or the state of their prisons etc...
The solution lies in more preventative measures. Why does the rapist rape? Why does the killer kill? Why is the paedophile unable to adjust and control his desires? These people aren't absolved from the responsibility they take in what they do... but neither are we as the society that births them...
We should take responsibility for one another and become more aware and involved in our country and world... we certainly shouldn't be paying our goverment to sweep the nasties under the rug with our human rights, in a "i wont ask, you wont tell" manner...
2007-10-24 12:17:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no the only reason i say that's harmless people could be carried out, inspite of the certainty that i do think of murderers should die, i think of the subject in britain is sentences are too short and prisons are turning out to be too elementary, i could herald a existence sentence of a minimum of 30 years for homicide, if a toddler is murdered 40 years minimum, i could additionally make advantageous their could me not greater comfortable prisons ALL prisoners could placed on uniforms, no shade tvs no i pods, small cells, buckets for bogs 20 hours consistent with day locked in cells, at weekends 23 hours consistent with day locked in cells and lights out at 7 30 pm. make penitentiary a perfect punishment that no prisoner needs to return to.
2016-10-04 12:40:17 · answer #3 · answered by missildine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, let the punishment fit the crime, if people are aware of the punishment they will think twice about the crime.
2007-10-24 12:10:19 · answer #4 · answered by dilainebriggs 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You don't have guns there, so no violent crimes, why would you need capital punishment?
2007-10-24 12:07:15 · answer #5 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋