Please let me know if you agree with in me in regards to my views on the death penalty?

Question

After a family member was murdered my views of the death penalty have drastically changed. Until recently, I believed that the death penalty was unjust and cruel. But now, I after I analyzed things and I come to the conclusion that the death penalty is totally appropriate for those who kill innocent people. People argue that if a person kills someone they should be placed in prison for the rest of their and have their own life to regret what they have done.

But after watching MSNBC specials about life in prison, it seems as though the prisoners are not suffering. San Quinten, inmates have access to the internet, they are served with 3 square meals a day, and they even have a BASEBALL TEAM!!! Also, if they are "good" in prison they have this program where they can have their wife come visit them and spend the 2 days in a trailer. That doesn't seem like they are suffering to me. I think if a innocent person is murdered, their murderers life should be taken as well and FAST. It should NOT take years for execution.

Last sentence doesn't make sense. Sorry. What I was trying to say was that people argue that a murderers should spend the rest of their life in prison and they also have the rest of their life to think about what they've done.

Answer 1

It is good to have a real topic to debate instead of all of the name calling and personal attacks, thank you so much.

I must disagree with your latter assessment. The death penalty is wrong.

Capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.

Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.

Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.

The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It is applied randomly at best and discriminatorily at worst. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who are people of color, and on those who are themselves poor and uneducated.

The defects in death-penalty laws, conceded by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, have not been appreciably altered by the shift from unfettered discretion to "guided discretion." These changes in death sentencing have proved to be largely cosmetic. They merely mask the impermissible arbitrariness of a process that results in an execution.

Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.

Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.

Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.

A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to s et for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest Or society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory.

Do you get justice or revenge in the death penalty?

Answer 2

The death penalty is the ONLY justice for murderers. If you steal $5, then you owe $5. Anything less (even $4.99) is not justice. If you take a life, the only thing you can give of equal value is your own life. Anything less (even life in prison) is a mockery and insult to the victim and the concept of justice.

A murderer's victim will never have an opportunity to think about what they've done wrong and try to become a better person. It's absurd that we should give that opportunity to a murderer.

BTW, it is a deterrent if it is properly used. In 2005 there were ~16,000 murders and only 60 executions. Obviously if there is less than a 1% chance of being given the death penalty it is not a deterrent. If there were 16,000 murders and 5000 executions, then it would be a deterrent and the next year there would be a huge decrease in the number of murders. Any punishment is only a deterrent if it is used. Duh.

Furthermore, the death penalty has nothing to do with revenge. It is justice and self defense. If you murder the man standing right next to me, then I am going to kill you in self devense. Even though you didn't attack me in any way, you just proved that you are a danger to me and the only logical thing to do is kill you before you kill me. What does it matter if the death penalty is administered within 1 minute (like my example) or after the years it takes to go through the court system? The point is to enforce justice and to act in self defense by removing a person that is dangerous.

Answer 3

I agree with those who are saying that the death penalty is a defense mechanism that society wields, as well as a deterrent to potential murders.

Some will say that it is not a deterrent. That the few executions we perform each year do not stop people from murdering other people. Perhaps the current state of things does not provide a deterrent. I would argue that it is because we are not using capital punishment enough. If we look at the current state of our prison system, we will find that prison itself does not seem to be much of a deterrent for the millions rotating through them. Should we then follow the "it does not deter" logic and simply shut down our prison system? No. We should make our penal system more punishing. I am open for caning, the stocks, rotten tomatoes, etc but I am digressing.

The second main point people bring up is the sanctity of life. Like most people, I feel that life is precious and that no individual has the right to take it way from another person. But then there are exceptions. As has been mentioned, I have the right to defend myself. If someone has entered my home brandishing a weapon and I am reasonably sure that my life, or those of my family are in jeopardy, I have the right to use deadly force to defend myself and my family. I also believe that a society has a right to defend itself from threats. Anti social people by definition are a threat to a social people. Murderers are anti social. They should be removed permanently from society. Others in society should witness the unpleasant consequences of anti social actions. I believe that societies should not lightly take away the lives of it's citizens, but that they are within their rights to do so. As people have said, it is abhorrent to take away the life of a human being. This is true, but it is also abhorrent to tale away the agency of a fellow human being, yet this is what we do when we throw people in jail.

This being said, I would be willing to cede the point and simply imprison murderers, et al, if a few conditions were met.
--They should never never never NEVER get out. The word "life" should mean life. No payroll, no time off for good behavior, no pity for the 87 year old murderer who is now in bad health.
--They should not have the same rights as other, law abiding, citizens. Once someone has demonstrated anti-social behavior, they have forfeited certain rights. Among them are liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
--No common areas where these slime can form their own society. They should all rot in solitary confinement. They should all have to eat, sleep, and defecate in their own tiny room. They should never be allowed to see the sun or the sky, or breathe fresh air again.

Cruel? Unusual? Pick any aspect of the concept of imprisonment, and you may be able to debate the cruelty of it. Bars are cruel. A crummy little bed is cruel. Being subjected to forced sleeping and waking periods is cruel. Cruel is a subjective thing. Personally, if I were ever sent to prison, I would prefer not having to associate with, or accosted by my fellow convicts, so solitary confinement would not be cruel.


Now, if only I were deterred from blowing so much time on answering questions. (But I do enjoy your questions and the answers they produce.)

Answer 4

I am not for or against the death penalty , but I do believe it it has to happen then there should be enough time it extract out why the person did what he did. Sort of what Capote did for his book "In Cold Blood."

If it is an outright murder that there is no question of a doubt that the person did it, I am for the death penalty.


However, after seeing the movie "The Hurricane," I am against the death penalty if there is a chance that evidence was not brought up on purpose or was withheld.

Answer 5

I think if its proven w/ dna--meaning no mistake possible then the murderer needs to be in the fast lane....i think all murderers need to be given the death penalty, but maybe it should take longer if the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence only, b/c thats when mistakes happen. I am all for the death penalty and the sooner they die and stop being a waste of space and money the better, but only if its proven beyond a shadow of a doubt....other than that then I suppose we could give them a few yrs to some how try and get their case over turned or to get new evidence.

But other than that I agree w/ your case....

Answer 6

I'm more or less in agreement. I think the death penalty should require a higher standard of 'proof,' than life imprisonment (since you can be released from prison, but not brought back from the dead), but not in the form of a lengthy apeals process. You also have to be comfortable with the idea that, on occassion, innocent people /will/ be executed, because no system is perfect.

Answer 7

Life in prison seems more cruel than the death penalty. but besides that, who says we owe it to the criminals to support and care for them for the remainder of their lives. If they recieved the death penalty, it wasnt for being a humanitarian. They care nothing for other lives, why should we value theirs. Do we give a mad dog " Life in the Kennel"? No we put it down for the sake of the general public. If an inmate is dead he cant escape, harass his victims or their families by proxy, kill other inmates or guards, and will not cost taxpayers $40,000.00 or more per year just to house and feed them.

Answer 8

I am in complete agreement with you in that the death penalty should be given to those that commit murder. The only stipulation that I would apply would be that there has to be DNA proof linking them to the crime. I would not want someone accused of murder and was really innocent to be put to death because of a mistake.

DNA isn't always available in murder cases but often times it is. If there is definate DNA to prove their guilt - so be it!

Answer 9

In all honestly, I can't understand why there are such sick individuals in this country. And I'd like to see many of them die, myself...but I can't let my instinctively evoked emotions guide my views. Although the federal government may not say it, the death penalty is under direct violation of the 8th Amendment.
Additionally, the death penalty is one of the oldest and most barbaric acts of "justice". The "eye for an eye" philosophy should not be the rule of thumb.

Besides, a life sentence in prison is much more dreadful than the death penalty.
EDIT: The example you mentioned of some criminals serving life sentences is VERY, VERY uncommon. That is so uncommon, my God. Mostly, the inmates get 1 hour outside a day; other than that they are in their cells doing nothing. But I've actually seen reports of the DC Sniper who is spending his life in prison. He, and many others, cry and remorse every day of their lives.

Answer 10

This particular topic is something I've flip-flopped on several times over the years. I used to be firmly for the death penalty - however, I'm not sure I totally agree with that anymore. The logic behind killing someone to demonstrate that killing someone is wrong just seems... well, flawed.

However, I'm also rather sick of spending money from the community to keep a prisoner alive for years & years. How about a system where *only* the family & loved one's of the sentenced person pays to keep that prisoner alive? That way the rest of the society isn't burdened with needing to care for them? (Sort of like a parking meter ... when nobody cares enough to keep you alive - you expire)

Answer 11

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On the one hand, I think there are some people who deserve to die for their crimes. On the other hand, I also know that there have been plenty of people who were wrongfully convicted for crimes they did not commit. You can always release an innocent person from prison, but you can never reverse an execution.