When is the death penalty justified?

Question

i was just reading about a case in texas where a man was executed for murder even though he was not present when the crime was committed, and even though the murderee was killed by a single shot which everyone agreed the murderer had not fired.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A451599

of course it was texas, and the murderer was black while the murderee was a white jew.

can somebody explain the texas murder laws to me? or is it just that in texas being black is always a capital offence?

Answer 1

In my opinion, the taking of one life for another is never acceptable. It doesn't make the initial crime any less heinous, and it doesn't bring the victim back from the dead. So what's the point.
Execution should be a deterrent, and yet it is not. So what's the point? The United Kingdom abolished the death penalty nigh on sixty years ago and has a lower per capita murder rate than the USA, which still keeps the death penalty.
What does that tell you about the government, or the laws of the country? Is it a social issue, are the British just less murderous, or is it a matter of politics?

Something to consider...

Great question by the way.

Answer 2

It doesn't make sense. 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.

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 3

First of all race had nothing to do with it. Second of all --every state in the union have similiar laws. If you are the lookout for an armed robbery--not even present at the killing--you are as legally responsible for the death as the man who pulled the trigger. This has been the law of the land in every state since we were the United States. As far as the death penalty goes, I'm texan--I have no problem with it--those that recieve it will never be able to commit murder again--in prison or out of prison. However, I'd like to see the death penalty done away with in the United States--not from moral grounds--simply that it puts us in the same group of countries as Iran, Albania, North Korea, China. We can't extradite killers from abroad without having to agree not to try these killers using the death penalty. It doesn't have a large impact on society to give a little and standardize ourselves with the rest of the civilized world.

Answer 4

Texas' biggest problem is they are racist to the bone. Plus, they have a huge black population. My brother(white,non-racist) lives there. But to answer the question. Capital punishment according to the Bible stands when a murder has been committed. But I don't think a person can die for another's crime. That would be wrong.

Answer 5

When someone commits premeditated murder they should be put to death.

You are the one making the racial assumptions here.

I dont care what the race of the person is that commits the murder. Just because the death penalty might be skewed in the direction of more black murderers getting the death penalty doesnt mean less black murderers should get it. It just means not enough white murderers are given the death penalty.

Also, you have to realize that black people make up about 12 percent of the population but commit about 50 percent of the crimes, so it will be disproportional because the crime rates are disproportional. (but I am sure you will find a way to blame racism on that, too)

Answer 6

Well, firstly, the death penalty is only justified for a man who would kill again if he got out of prison.

But certainly, everywhere there are racially and religiously-biased penalties. Stoning is still practiced in some middle-eastern countries, wherein people are stoned to DEATH, merely for no believing in the local god.

Yeah, talk about the good nature of humans, eh?

Answer 7

It's called the felony murder rule. It is a rule of law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.
It's that simple. Don't want to be convicted of murder? The solution is simple---don't commit felonies with others who commit murder.

Answer 8

i don't know about texas.
all i know is my opinion. lol.
that mass murder, serial murder and raper or child mosteration..ought to be executed.
with DNA, eye witness, ect as hard evidences.
accidental murder of single child, spouse, stranger, ect.
no death..just time wasted in jail.
i think jail life is too luxurious..tv, microwave, weightlighting, ect..especially them in for life..we pay $30,000 a year per poerson..them in for life, don't get luxury for their crime.
them coming back out..need skills, counseling, biblical stuff would do them a world of good.
sex crime..castrated can have some very good benefits.
also serve a FEAR of committing the crime.

as for injustice..of what you've read..very possible..onesided..info.
crime is crime..should not be race base, yet..facts says..black do more crime than white..hispanic do more crime than white..so generalizing..isn't wise.or assuming isn't wise neither..but..if they work in this system for decades..assumption will allow kick in.
GOD will take care of the judge, the lawyer, liars, ect..of them WHO KNEW BETTER..nobody get away
with crime before GOD
for SIN follow a liar, a cheater, thief, ect

Answer 9

Even in an open-and-shut case, I think the question splits into two questions: Does a murderer deserve to die? and Should we, the people of the United States, kill this person?

Even on those occasions when I think the answer to the first question is 'yes', I don't think the answer to the second is also in the affirmative.

Answer 10

Texas? Ah.... Bush country. Pre-emptive strike. Think, think.. AHA! Did the accused pay the actual murderer for the murder?