Do you believe in capital punishment?

Question

A question came up about casterating sex offenders. Since that is part of capital punishment and many people said "yes" to it then do you beleive in capital punishment? To what degree do you beleive in it? Lose a hand for steeling? Lose a penis for raping? Lose a life for killing? Do you think with those consequences less crimes will be commited?

Answer 1

I'm on the fence about it, for odd reasons, I think.

Personally I think these monsters should rot in their 6x6 cells till they die of old age, without being provided the luxury of release, even by death.

But then again, I realize the economic liability that imposes on taxpayers to foot the bill for said monsters to eat, etc.

So, I do and I don't, but in a bass ackwards sort of way.

Answer 2

So far, there has been no clear evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent for murder. People kill despite the fact that they may live in a state that supports capital punishment. It just doesn't seem to prevent these crimes. Capital punishment, to me, is a moral question..an ethical question, and it is my personal belief that since most agree that cruel and unusual punishment is indeed unethical, then so is capital punishment. What could be more cruel or unusual than the taking of human life? I suppose there may be those who argue that this type of punishment reduces harm to society...true, only if this person is indeed unable to be rehabilitated, and, there are no other means to keep him/her from preying upon society. But there are other means. We can keep these people confined for life. However many who receive life sentences often do not spend life in prison. Some may argue that the financial cost to imprison someone for life is much higher than the cost of capitall punishment...perhaps this is so, but perhaps not, if you consider the cost involved in the appeals processes to a death sentence that may be carried on for years and years and years...often at tax-payers' expense.

What do we do with animals who bite people? We put them down. Is this ethical? Some will say yes, others may disagree. I think most of us can agree that we need to protect society from harm. How best to do this will forever be the subject of debate and controversy.

Regardless of how the courts define "sanity," sane people do not commit murder. Even psychopaths, who are legally and psychologically considered "sane" are not sane in terms of their actions. Is it ethical to punish people who are mentally ill- in cruel and unusual ways? Is it fair to say that those who cannot be rehabilitated deserve to die? These are not easy questions to answer, as evidenced by the fact that we do not have uniform agreement on this- not in the USA, where some states support capital punishment and others do not. It is clearly a devisive issue, and it probably always will be.

EDIT: And further, how do we ever atone for the few instances that we have put to death an innocent person? And what of institutionalized discrimination? Are more men and blacks/minorities (and those of lower economic status) being disproportionately being put to death due to an inability to receive equal justice or adequate legal representation? Are people who have money (O.J. Simpson comes to mind) able to pay their way out of legal trouble whereas others less financially stable are destined to get the shorter end of the stick? Is this just?

Answer 3

Losing a penis for raping is not an eye for an eye. That's more like 2 eyes for 1 eye. Same with losing a hand for stealing.

A rapist should get raped.. simple. To be fair.

But I don't believe in all that stuff unless the person did something very very cruel.. like tortured 7 people for a month. Otherwise.. jail and death penalty is good enough.

Answer 4

People may not realize that even in cases of rape, innocent people have been convicted. Some, because the wrong person was identified by the victim, some because of coerced confessions or confessions manipulated from them

You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle without answers to these
.
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 5

I do not believe in capital punishment. I used to, but now I don't. As humans, we have no right to take the life of another - its as simple as that. Sure, the criminal may have taken a life, but taking theirs in turn is NEVER justified. Capital Punishment is legalized murder - and I'm just not for that.

As for how criminals should be punished? There should be no solitary confinement for the purpose of protecting criminals. They turn our streets into unsafe places, where the innocent can be preyed upon at any time. I think that justice is subjecting them to the same kind of environment, rather than providing them with protection. Some say it is barbaric, but I believe it to be true justice...

Answer 6

I did think that putting someone to death made sense as the punishment when the offense was premeditated murder.
Now, I don't believe we have the right to castrate, take a hand or take a life. If the person is imprisoned, that is enough to keep him or her from repeating the crime. Capital punishment has not been a deterrent, because the impulse to do the crime wipes out any consideration of consequence.
The idea of being incarcerated is usually enough of a deterrent for most people.
C. :)!!

Answer 7

i don't.... reason being: States tell human beings they are in a position to't kill..... yet however the states turn around and kill by using capital punishment.. it incredibly is being hypocritical.. additionally, in a "functioning, democratic society" how do we positioned human beings on demise row, as quickly as all of us comprehend in some unspecified time interior the destiny an harmless guy or woman is going to be performed??? Now granted that doesn't ensue oftentimes, yet my recommended wager is that its has got here approximately. The criminal Justice gadget isn't and not in any respect would be suited...... i don't think of that is real for individuals to homicide different human beings yet unfortuately it occurs regardless of the justification could be. My suited chum replace into murdered and that i nonetheless have not got faith in capital punishment- somebody else demise won't deliver my chum back. there is not any justice whilst somebody is murdered. lifestyles in detention center is extra low-cost besides... demise sentence appeals take a minimum of 7-8 years (or longer counting on the state) to get via the courts. by using the time tax payers pay for court docket expenses, faxes, lawyer expenses, paralegals, etc, its lots extra low-cost to enable killers rot in a cellular.....

Answer 8

I think if a person can be rehabilitated and shows remorse, then jail time is punishment enough. But I do believe in capital punishment for severe offenders like serial killers. I just don't think people like that can ever be rehabilitated and I don't think we should have to pay to keep them alive.

Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But I fully believe that some people do no deserve to be on this planet.

Answer 9

The problem is that it is inherently unfair. If a criminal is rich, that person can buy the best lawyers and literally get away with murder. However, if a person is poor, forget it. Look at the cases of OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, and Phil Spector as examples of how a lot of money can delay justice almost indefinitely or get you out of a murder conviction, no matter how guilty you are.

Answer 10

I'm ag'in it.

That was the short answer. I find several grounds for objecting to the practice of capital punishment--but I won't go into them here, as the discussions of those don't seem to come very close to either gender issues or to women's studies. There is some small overlap, but not enough to justify the lengthier response.

Answer 11

I'd believe it in if it were carried out in a sensible fashion. That means that it is applied equally without regard to race or gender, that it is applied in a timely fashion. Further it should be done as efficiently as possible. The way that hangings in the UK were done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries would work.
I'm not in favor of corporal punishments like hand or penis chopping.