Is capital punishment the right approach ?

Question

Hi Susan S
Thank you for your point of view. I can see you have reflected on this issue ‘long and hard’.
I have tried to find back up to the statistics within your answer from the government Web site link you offered. Unfortunately, I cannot find any of the relevant data from that link.
Please help.

Whast about justice.
Is it just for a murderer to forfit his/ her life.

Answer 1

Murder is no longer a major criminal offense, I understand that the prison term for murder is as little as 9 years. I think we need to overhaul our outlook on murder. Forensic science and knowledge of DNA can prove without doubt who killed someone especially when Raped.

The taking of a life is a serious matter and if it is proved 'without doubt' and the circumstances warrant the death penalty (i.e. not self defense or other unfortunate circumstances) then the death penalty should be given.

The term 'without doubt' needs redefining.

To allow a serial killer out of prison on a technicality does not make sense and if he/she kills again then the view of the dissenter in my view becomes nullified. There has to be a common sense approach applied. A mean between making it clear to the perpetrator that murder will be dealt with and also realising we can get it wrong.

In my view the death penalty should be reinstated with reservations.

ATB Red

Answer 2

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. Some people who answered your question are wrong on the facts. And your question is too important for slogans or sound bites.

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 3

The problem with the argument that the likes of Ted Bundy never went on to kill another, is that neither did Timothy Evans after he was hanged. The only slight problem is that Timothy Evans never actually killed anybody in the first place. The problem with the death penalty is that if you get it wrong it is a bit difficult to correct. Maybe it is better to have a thousand men behind bars than one innocent man at the gallows ? How would you feel if that one innocent man was your son, your father or even you ? Try and imagine the split second as the hangman goes for the release mechanism that will end your life and only you knows for 100% that you are innocent , then try and tell me that it is the right approach. And don't try to say it won't happen because miscarriages of justice always occur at all levels.

Answer 4

Ask Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Joseph Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker (the Birmingham Six), Paul Hill, Gerry Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson (the Guildford Four), Stephen Downing, Judith Ward, Stefan Kisko, Peter Fell, Angela Clark, Sally Canning, and many others.

Why them? They are all people who have been convicted of murder by a jury BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, and who we might have hanged had the sentence been available.

And they were all later found to have been wrongly convicted and had to be released. These people probably aren't in favour of the death penalty.

The 'well, they don't re-offend after the death penalty" argument is brilliant! Why don't we apply it to all crimes however small? That's the logical outcome of using that argument in isolation.

Answer 5

No. Bill Moyers interviewed Thomas Cahill tonight (Friday) to talk about cruelty and that very subject. Only three large countries still practice that barbaric ritual: China, Saudi Arabia, and US. Nearly all of the rest of the world realizes that it makes no sense. The Quakers felt the same way back in the 17th Century.

If you look at capital punishment statistics, you'll see that there's a huge racial disparity in its application. Given two defendants accused of the same crime with similar circumstances, the African-American defendant is ten times more likely to face the punishment of death penalty than the white defendant.

Godgunsa: As you're attempting to justify an action using the Bible, I might pose these two recurring themes from the New Testament:

Why do you complain about that speck of dust in your neighbor's eye when there's a huge two by four sticking out of yours?

Forgiveness (the most important lesson Christians talk about but rarely practice)


I think Mr. Cahill's observations are perfectly demonstrated in the reponses posted here. Man is a very cruel person indeed.


p2of9 wrote, "Yes! It IS an effective deterrant to murder crimes."

Please substantiate your claims. Doth thou understand the distinction between metaphor and statement of fact? Where in the Bible does Jesus sanction killing? Name chapter/verse please. Just one.

Answer 6

It's so easy to sit in judgment of others. It's so easy to get caught up in our feelings on broad topics like capital punishment.

Personally, I have not been touched by evil. I have not had a loved one killed by a barbaric murderer. I know no person wrongly accused of a crime.

I do look at it like this. If I was on a jury, and capital punishment was an option, I would not have any pre-conceived notion. No other person on the jury could make my mind up for me. If I and 11 of my peers felt that capital punishment was justified, then I would assume it was the right approach.

Answer 7

Yes it is true that no-one sentenced and put to death as part of the justice system has ever gone on to commit another crime but it is also true that few if any have thought about the punishment before committing the crime that they were convicted and punished for
Quoting the Bible to justify state sanctioned vengence is not a good use of religion. What if the criminal is not a Christian, does that make it easier or harder to fry him?

Answer 8

If you were talking about a PERFECT justice system, where the worse criminals with certainty of guilt are eliminated, there might be an argument.

Also most studies have shown no clear indication that the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent for crime

However, the justice system is flawed - there have been many cases of death row inmates finally being exonerated by DNA evidence. There have also been cases of prosecution holding back evidence to win more cases and be promoted.

Answer 9

If capital punishment is a deterrent, why are there thousands of people on death row?

Hasn't deterred them from doing anything to actually get there, so it is only used as a punishment to make the authorities and families feel better.
I feel a life sentence without possiblilty of parole would be more appropriate as once they're dead, then the punishment in over.

Answer 10

no it is totally wrong. If we incarcerate somebody for a life sentance then realise later they are innocent, we can let them out and compensate them. If we electrocute/behead/hang them then we have potentially killed an innicent person.

Just look at the birmingham 6.

Arguments that it is a deterrent are also flawed, a large percentage of murders are crimes of passion that have happened in the heat of the moment. These people are in such a frame of mind that they are not thinking straight anyway.

The death penalty is nothing but revenge pure and simple. As pretty much all world religions have forgivness as the central theme, it has no place in any culture