English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

I was pro-capital punishment 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 last 30 years, over 100 people have been released from death row after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. 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."

2007-11-01 10:51:20 · answer #1 · answered by El Guapo 7 · 1 0

I don't agree with capital punishment. Since the criminal justice system is largely based on the notions that certain criminals can be rehabilitated and that punishments should act as a deterence, capital punishment just doesn't fit. It has been proven that capital punishment does not act as a deterence, costs a lot more money than simply putting the person in prison for life and there are a disturbingly high number of cases of death row inmates who have been later proved to be innocent. This is one form of punishment where you can't undo it if you later find out a mistake was made.

2007-11-01 20:56:11 · answer #2 · answered by Rachie 1 · 0 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. (Sources listed below)

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.

2007-11-01 14:45:03 · answer #3 · answered by Susan S 7 · 2 0

Yes, I agree with it completely. I also agree that a jury should determine the penalty, so it's a catch 22.

For crimes such as murder, child molestation/rape, treason, etc., the death penalty should be an option for the jurors.

2007-11-01 14:52:03 · answer #4 · answered by vinsa1981 3 · 0 1

Yes

For Murder, Treason, Rape, Child Molestation, Communism, and Aggravated Arson

2007-11-01 14:23:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Muder, rape (real not statutory), treason or anything that is done maliciously that causes death to another (not an accident)

2007-11-01 14:24:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes, for homosexuality and other bad things.

2007-11-01 14:27:13 · answer #7 · answered by angelo 4 · 1 3

No. None.

2007-11-01 14:24:20 · answer #8 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 2 1

no.

2007-11-01 14:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by jack spicer 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers