English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hi, i am doing the research about death penalty. i want to know
What are the reasons against the death penalty?
Does NY have death penaly? ( cause i saw there's a website said NY have death penaly, but another website said they don't have death penaly. i am totally confuse. )
Thanks

2007-11-19 11:40:29 · 19 answers · asked by k3lly 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

19 answers

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.

2007-11-20 02:41:01 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0 0

The judicial system has made and continues to make numerous errors. Putting someone to death means that the error can never be overturned--the punishment is final. Thus, until wehave a perfect judicial system, the death penalty is immoral. This is especially true as there are well known disparities in the type and quality of justice that different classes and races receive. Thus, the death penalty acts more harshly against minorities and the lower class, and thus acts as another way of perpetuating racial and economic disparity. Third, there is no evidence to suggest that countries or states with an active death penalty have less crime than those without (when other factors like income level, overall crime rate (non-capital cases), etc. are removed).

2007-11-19 11:45:53 · answer #2 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 0 0

The judicial device has made and maintains to make distinctive blunders. putting somebody to dying potential that the blunders can under no circumstances be overturned--the punishment is very final. for this reason, until eventually wehave a desirable judicial device, the dying penalty is immoral. it relatively is fairly genuine as there are properly known disparities in the form and high quality of justice that diverse instructions and races acquire. for this reason, the dying penalty acts greater harshly against minorities and the decrease type, and for this reason acts as yet in any different case of perpetuating racial and financial disparity. third, there is not any information to indicate that international locations or states with an lively dying penalty have much less crime than those with out (whilst different factors like earnings point, frequent crime fee (non-capital circumstances), etc. are bumped off).

2016-09-29 13:23:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I am a sociology major so I may help some.

Reasons for not supporting the death penalty can fall back to the 1972 Case of Georgia v Furman where Furman, a prisoner in Georgia, argued that the death penalty was cruel and unusual. So it was argued over the US Supreme Court where capital punishment was banished until 1976. Here is another site that may also help you as well:

http://www.antideathpenalty.org/reasons.html

HTH!

2007-11-19 11:47:54 · answer #4 · answered by Cynthia B 1 · 0 0

Most people who are against the death penalty feel it goes against their religious beliefs. The bible will support just about any stand you take on any issue if you look for it.

Also, there have been instances of wrongly accused men and women put to death. Eliminating the death penalty would solve that from ever happening. Death is permanent

2007-11-19 11:45:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Some argue that it's not a deterrent to crime--that no one willing to commit murder is going to weigh the prospect of capital punishment versus life in prison before they commit a serious crime. Canada banned the death penalty in 1962 and has seen the same downward trend in violent crime as in the United States.

It's also very costly to run a death penalty case in court (upwards of $1 million).

And of course, if you get it wrong and kill someone who's innocent, it's kind of hard to take it back.

New York has legal capital punishment, but they haven't executed anyone since 1963.

2007-11-19 11:48:12 · answer #6 · answered by jacob decibel 3 · 0 0

There is no rational argument against the death penalty. However, as we become a more tolerant society the walls of reason will continue to be torn down by those that oppose laws that are logical and right.

It is right and reasonable that in a Country that is governed by the rule of law that the punishment should fit the crime. If a person murders another person they should forfeit their own life.

Tolerance of evil and the rule of law can't co-exist.

2007-11-19 11:47:30 · answer #7 · answered by truthsayer 6 · 0 1

You could argue about the inacent people who are killed, if it is just and truly "fair" and not cruel punishments like other historical events. things in that nature are probly good. I wouldn't do the death penelty though, it has been abused in highschool research papers and is very opinionated. Try getting a topic you can grab more fact's about, something more recent, and something that will really interest you.

2007-11-19 11:45:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

People think its inhumane.. of course they never take into consideration the sadness those creatures create with the family, the life or lives taken and the amount of money (taxpayers money) to house, feed and keep them safe for the rest of their lives. Most states put moratoriums on death penalites NY is probably one of them.

2007-11-19 11:46:48 · answer #9 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0 0

new york used to not have the death penanty, now they do.
the death penalty has never been a deterrent to crime.
also, from time to time innocent people have been
executed.
in texas if a white kills a black he will probably get prison
time, but if a black kills a white, probably death penalty.some argue it is a unfair and racist practice.
in texas we lead the country with executions.

2007-11-19 11:49:33 · answer #10 · answered by Jerry S 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers