Death Penalty?

Question

should it be banned or stay how it is. why?

Answer 1

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.

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 2

I used to be pro-death penalty but with the increased technology in forensic science, I'm appalled at the number of innocent people who have been executed.

Also we are one of only a few countries who still have the death penalty and most of those are third-world countries.
The countries that don't have a death penalty have less crime than we do.

So obviously it needs to be looked at.

Serial killers and pedophiles should get the death penalty. It's hard to say which is worst as long as there is no doubt they are truly the perpetrator.

Answer 3

The death penalty is effective. The only reason crimes still ocurr is because the judicial system is slow and congested. Also criminals are rely on good lawyers and loopholes to get away from it and instead do 30 years in prison.

Criminals are not afraid to go to prison. Also they are not afraid to do life in prison, but what they are afraid of is the idea of their lives being taken away from them and if the government could find a way to execute more criminals who have been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have killd someone intentionally then you will see the number of murders go down.

Another good piece of evidence is the fact that a lot of criminals who kill someone seem to run to states or countries where there is no death penalty,,,,,,,,INTERESTING NOW ISNT IT!!!

Answer 4

I had a cousin who was murdered at a very young age.

the man who murdered him was suppose to be caring for him at the time. He hit him so hard he punctured his lung. He bled to death, inside his body. Kind of like choking to death.

my cousin stayed alive for about 7 hours before he died. He was throwing up blood and kept passing out. the man who was caring for him never took him to the hospital. He tried to make my cousin take a nap.

Then when he thought the boy had died, he told my sister (his then girlfriend) he was going out for ciggarretes.

My sister found my cousin dead. called her boyfriend and he told her to call an ambulence and tell them the boy fell off the monkey bars at the playground. Of course the ambulence saw past all that, and called police. My sister and this a** both went to prison.

she got out after one year, he will be in jail for the next 30 years. Truthfully, knowing he can never get out for parole, makes me happy and feel safe. I like the fact that every day this guy has to put up with some other nut that may catch him in the shower and make him his girlfriend. or that he may get beat a few times a week. I saw a recent photo of him and he looks pretty haggard. It felt good to see. I used to think the death penalty was the best idea. Get rid of the ones that are just no good, maybe in certain cases like Gacy and Dahmer it may be the best, but for the guy who killed my cousin? I think he is fine where he is at.

Answer 5

Well what country are you talking about for a start???

It's been abolished in the UK for quite some time, and this subject one of the most debated in criminology...

I keep changing my mind on it.. but realistically, it's better for it not to exsist as the British gov, have had to pardon a lot of wrongful convictions made, for example Mahood mattan.

maybe you should read up on some statistics on amnesty international....

I've never understood how you punish a person for taking a life by taking their life too... what does that make the person who took the criminals life? does it make them criminal too?

There are however, really strong arguments for and against this debate but I am way too tired to get into them now.

EDIT:

Actually, person who said prisoners are more likely to fear for their life than go to prison..

According to a study, I believe by someone with second name of Hood, if I can remember rightly, The threat of the death penalty has not acted as a deterence.

also

"In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41"

Answer 6

I never was much on the death penalty. However I think all pedophiles who are found guilty one time should be killed as if they were rabid dogs. All they ever do is go out and harm more kids period. On that same note the same should go for rapists. One time is too many execution.

Answer 7

The Death Penalty should be banned. What if someone was truthfully innocent but then they get sentenced to death, but then years later, they discover a new technology or SOMETHING that proved that persons innocence, but it was too late? It should definitely be banned.

Answer 8

While it's tempting to be "for" the death penalty in some crimes, the number of inmates who are later found to have been innocent should also give us pause on whether we should ever render a judgement as final as death.
. . . or as the judge said to the inmate as he pronounced sentence, "You are to be hanged at sunrise, and I hope it'll be a lesson to ya!"

Answer 9

Too many appeals. DNA testing seems to be the ultimate test in many crimes. One shot deal: you come up hot, guilty. Find new death penalties and sell tickets, advertising, and pay-per-view. See what happens when you kill someone or beat your kids. Big bucks.

Answer 10

I think it should be used more often. It is really crappy that law abiding citizens get crapped on by the government when they work really hard, yet can't get any kind of financial support. Yet criminals can stay in prison, eating regular meals, sleeping in small yet warm beds and even watching cable television. I think especially the people who repeatedly commit crimes like child abuse and murder need to be rid of.