2007-12-03 13:17:14 · 11 answers · asked by ... 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
At least a couple of people are incorrect about the cost of the death penalty and about some of the risks.
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 things.
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.
2007-12-04 01:03:28 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do away with it entirely and spend the savings in ways that prevent murders. Most of the expense is up front at the investigation and trial stage and serves only to let prosecutors pander to the public by showing how tough they are.
The death penalty isn't even a blip on the criminal radar screen and hasn't been significant for over a century. During the last 100 years, the most people executed in one year was 198 in 1935. For a nation of 300 million people that is statistically zero.
2007-12-03 13:19:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes it should exist, it would make it to easy for the real criminals (sex offenders, serial killers) to do a crime, because they would know that they would just have to spend their days in prison being cared for. I am all for the Death Penalty, it's not wrong and it should exist, to me it's Justice!!!
2007-12-03 14:09:18 · answer #3 · answered by 24Special 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are people capable of such heinous acts that the only way for us to live in a civilized society is to remove them from society. Personally, I believe that the death penalty should be used to rid society of criminal elements that are resistant to meet societys standards.
2007-12-03 13:27:07 · answer #4 · answered by jeff 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well, i'm a catholic too, john. and all i've got to say is, show me one who's been executed, who is a repeat offender.
there should be a time limit on appeals, then do what the law requires. i know there is the argument of, what if he was inocent? but, if there is no doubt, and he admits it, no problem. how about this for a slogan= if he admits it, he gets it.
2007-12-03 13:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by gen patton 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a religious person I would say that it is wrong and it shouldn't be practiced, since my religion teaches me that we don't have the power to end someone else's life no matter what that certain person has done. The only one who has the power to do this is God himself.
2007-12-03 13:27:49 · answer #6 · answered by john 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't want to pay for some worthless individual to sit around watching cable for the rest of his stupid life, on my dime...
2007-12-03 15:35:55 · answer #7 · answered by skyler5599 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should stay because if sombody killed one of my love ones i would want them to die as well.But you know stupid liberals are always gonna cry about something.I'm glad i live in the great state of Texas.
2007-12-03 13:26:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the problem is it's not enforced when it's imposed... so what's the point of even having it
2007-12-03 13:24:39 · answer #9 · answered by THE CROP KICK CHICK 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What if you kill the wrong person-------------OJ. proved that the court system is not perfect
2007-12-03 13:41:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋