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

2007-12-03 13:30:45 · 11 answers · asked by A Saucerful of Secrets 2 in Entertainment & Music Polls & Surveys

i meant "allowed". aw well. it's all good.

2007-12-03 13:31:05 · update #1

11 answers

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.

2007-12-04 01:52:26 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0 0

Well, in one way it kind of makes sense. We are the primitive race of man who engages in warfare, so it seems a bit pretentious of us not to flex our power brutally when it comes to serious civil matters as well. Perhaps if we truly were a higher kind of species then capital punishment would not be allowed.

2007-12-03 21:36:55 · answer #2 · answered by the Boss 7 · 1 0

The problem with capital punishment is that it is misused, otherwise I think it is good for true capital crimes, such as multiple rapes and murders. The scum should always be eradicated.

2007-12-03 21:39:34 · answer #3 · answered by MR 2 · 0 0

State by state issue.

2007-12-03 21:33:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yes do think that a thief would steel anymore if watched another thief get his hand cut off, same with all that murders
if they borough back public execution people would stop killing one another might work

2007-12-03 23:24:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sure. I mean, I don't have anything against it. Death is death. I have nothing against giving it out to those who already did it to others.

2007-12-03 22:41:18 · answer #6 · answered by Smallz 5 · 0 0

yeah, for murderers, rapists and child molesters, Every One Of Them!

2007-12-03 21:34:26 · answer #7 · answered by Princess Peabody 4 · 0 0

Yes-- "an eye for an eye"

2007-12-03 21:34:29 · answer #8 · answered by from HJ 7 · 0 0

YES

2007-12-03 21:33:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yes, and it isn't severe enough.

2007-12-03 21:39:03 · answer #10 · answered by YR 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers