2007-11-07 20:48:08 · 9 answers · asked by Paul K 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
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. You received a couple of answers that are not correct about costs and about deterrence.
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.
2007-11-08 01:03:16 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No person who has been administered capital punishment has ever committed another crime.
It may or may not have a deterrent value to some potential murderers.
I have mixed feelings about it. I have no sympathy for anyone guilty of a capital crime. Most of their victims never got an appeal.
On the other hand I think it may be a bit brutalizing to our society. I would be quite happy if we could just lock them up for life.
2007-11-07 21:09:24 · answer #2 · answered by Warren D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i replace into in want of capital punishment till I heard a DA communicate, refusing to even re-evaluate a condemned guy's case in face of DNA data exonerating him. Then i found out that we actually can and do have criminals in the courtroom equipment---on the facet of the regulation, and "lawfully" killing human beings typical to be harmless. considering that then, far too a lot of human beings on dying row have been exonerated by utilising DNA data, making a mockery of the well known-day justice equipment. could we proceed killing harmless human beings? Why can we've capital punishment? it is extra often than not approximately retribution--revenge by utilising a nicer be conscious--it has little or no longer something to do with reducing threat, neither critically discouraging others from committing capital crimes nor "removing the murderous felons from society". we can do a solid adequate pastime in conserving them in the back of bars indefinitely. all of us thirst for "justice". it is the stuff of flicks, the undesirable guy gets it on the top in some undesirable, magnificent dying it is so deeply relaxing for us all. yet is that who we actually are, could that be who we are? The criminal equipment surely heavily SEEKS the best applicants for dying row--those people who we've a particular hatred for, no longer the mentally disabled, no longer the coercered or out of comprehensible blind anger, yet those "evil, diabolitical, sadistic and pre-meditating" actors in existence that make for the final villians in the lore. The extra intentionally smart and craven the murderer is, the extra we've self assurance he extraordinarily merits capital punishment. in the older days, he extraordinarily deserved to be hung, then his entrails pulled out, and then drawn and quartered. yet we are previous that now, and that i think of we would desire to be previous capital punishment.
2016-10-01 21:08:50 · answer #3 · answered by antonietti 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!! Absolutely ! It ensures that the convicted offender will NOT repeat the crime. It may/may not act as a detterent, but 1 less murderer, rapist,etc, IS 1 less murderer, rapist, or whatever. Those who argue about a convicted criminals 'Rights', often forget that under the law, prisoners have NO Rights except those granted to them by their custodial authorities. ...... BRING BACK EXECUTIONS. !!!!!
2007-11-07 21:20:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No Repeat Offenders
2007-11-07 21:10:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Saves a ton of money. It costs serious money to feed and cloth people who are no good to society. These are people who because of their own actions, will never ever be productive again. My taxes are better spent elsewhere than on their sorry butts!
2007-11-07 20:58:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It keeps fear in the minds of people that think of commiting homocide, and can help prevent it.
2007-11-07 21:08:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It prevents recidivism.
2007-11-07 20:50:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Vengence is mine
2007-11-08 15:29:02 · answer #9 · answered by Google Man 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋