What is your opinion on the use of death penalty in U.S.A?

Question

Should we abolish the death penalty, keep the death penalty as it is, or change the way the death penalty is currently practiced? Include your reasoning for your opinion in your answer.

Please answers in a paragraph. :)

Answer 1

It reminds me of the US approach to slavery. Long after most countries had outlawed it, we continued to insist that it was an essential part of our way of life. Now we are one of the few who still kill people legally. It's barbaric, and makes us seem primitive to people in other countries. It's time to end it.

Answer 2

The death penalty was in the UK and still is in parts of the USA the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. For example instead of spending millions of pounds keeping Ian Chapman, the moors murderers, dennis neilsen in prison if the UK had sentanced them to death it would have saved money and possibly sent a stronger message to others. In this day and age with all the CSI equipment when it can be proved that a person did commit the crime without a shadow of doubt it is definately something I feel should be brought back for certain crimes as the british justice system is no longer a system for the victims more a system that is sypathetic to the criminals (baby rapist got 6 years for repeatedly raping a 18 month old child and filming himself whilst doing so) Personally I would bring the death penalty back.

Answer 3

It is my belief that nobody has the right to decide whether another should die, even if they have killed someone. There have been many instances where killers have reconciled with the families of their victims. Why deny the killer and the family an opportunity to get some closure. The death penalty should only be allowed if it is not possible to keep the person in jail for life. This made more sense in the past when it might have been easier for people to escape, but it is not anymore because it is so hard to escape from those maximum security prisons.

Answer 4

You asked an interesting question. The first thing is to find out how the system is currently practiced. Only then does it make sense to talk about what to change. (At least one person who answered (squishy) is misinformed about deterrence.)

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA 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.

You did ask whether we should change the way it is practiced. The greatest concern should be whether a system can be crafted where we know we will not execute innocent people, that is, to make the system error proof. And, whether it is worth it to society to raise the bar for sentences of death so high that the expense of the system makes no sense.
People confess to crimes they did not commit (including murder), DNA covers relatively few (at most 10%) of all homicides and forensics is still developing. Eyewitnesses make mistakes. We would have to replace "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "beyond any doubt" which would turn the criminal justice system on its head.

Answer 5

It has been proven that with everyone we actually put to death using the death penality actually keeps 17 people from dying, cause of the deterant factor. Criminals think twice before killing someone cause of the death penalty. Also in support of the death penalty, The scriptures are full of scripture passages that talk about how if you kill someone, the only way to repay it is to give up your own life. So from a religious standpoint, the death penalty is a valid thing as far as god is concerned.
However, the way we use it right now is a joke, Many people on death row sit there and die in prison, cause of the jumbled up legal system. It is a joke, If people are on death row, they need to be taken through the system at a maximum of a year.
give em 1 year to prove they didn't really do it, and if they cant, they are done. We gotta get rid of this whole death row
people dying in prison of old age business.

Answer 6

What death penalty??? Most people on death row have been there for years and it will take years to have them put to death. Inmates have more rights than they should, in my opinion. They get 3 squares and a bed, cable, phones and who know what else and if say someone killed my 13 year old, why should they get to live in luxury while the person they hurt in living in dirt. What is wrong with that picture? Or someone gets all that because they felt they didn't have to follow the rules. So yes, I believe in the death penalty but no, I don't believe in all that goes with it.

One more thing I have thought about. If my child dies by the hands of someone else, why do I have to pay for the funeral and burial plot AND pay for the person who did it to watch HBO on Saturday night? Doesn't seem fair to me.

Answer 7

I'm against the death penalty. It is barbaric and for those that complain about paying for it, they are wrong in their thinking. It is cheaper to keep a person on death row than it is to deal with all the legal work (including appropriate appeals, court hearings, etc.) to get the approval needed to execute a person.

There are a number of people on death row that shouldn't be there. In fact, Houston (In the execution capital of the country - Texas) has had a number of problems with the revelation that there were numerous flaws in the crime lab, convicting a number of inocents of crimes they never committed. Newspaper article in the source.

Answer 8

I'm against it. It costs more than LWOP, it does not reduce the crime it is supposed to inhibit and the execution of the death warrant is inhumane. We have rules that require sick animals to be treated better.

However, if we must have it, how about a compromise? Do as they do in California. Have the death penalty for anyone who commits perjury that leads to a death sentence. That might cause DAs to think twice (or more) before putting dubious witnesses on the stand. In fact, if we might want to expand that law to include anyone who aids and abets someone in perjury - stick a needle in them too. I'd bet my mortgage that we'd have a change in attitude in courtrooms around the country.

Answer 9

I am for the death penalty, in some instances, yet its almost non-existent truly, since the sentences turn out to be "life sentences". After the appeals processes, its for the most part, rarely in action. Just an opinion.

Answer 10

I am for the death penalty. There is an appeals process and once that is exhausted, it should be carried out in a timely fashion. I think it is funny that execution is considered 'cruel and unusual punishment'......isn't cruel and unusual punishment what they did to their victims. I do believe that an eye for an eye should be exacted, if you kill someone with wanton abandon, you should forfeit your life. This is to exclude extenuating circumstances that cast a shadow of doubt on the intent, or the expected outcome, though, but for a premeditated murder....let them pay for it.

Unfortunately, there will be the martyrs to a cause. You have a Charles Manson, or a Mumia-Abu-Jamal, whose execution would only make a martyr out of them to their followers and cause more catastropy. These I think should get lifers, but without an audience to spew to (media outlets).....

In the tri-state Pennsylvania area where I live, I would like to see Mumia, Ira Einhorn, and Tom Capano put in one cell. That to me would be the ultimate punishment for each of them, since they each feel they are the put upon innocent and should be given free access to media outlets and claim to be prisoner #1. Let their egos feed on each other.

Answer 11

We need to reform the death penalty.
Death penalty should only be issued in violent crimes with at least 1-3+ eye wittnesses. The number depending on pressence of DNA evidence only.
Once convicted by a jury of peers and the pressence of above evidence they should be executed with in 6 months