Compassion is a 365 moral
2007-12-08 23:50:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by DENNIS P 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Here's another perspective. 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.
125 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 those 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.
2007-12-09 14:35:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't see the relevance between the penalty charge and death. Accidents happen whether they are inside or outside a penalty charge area.
Red Ken introduced the penalty charge in London. I'm not sure why he did this but I can only think of two reasons.
He saw it as tax revenue to prop up his wild expansion plans for the TFL outside of the area (Greater London) for which he was elected: or he is just the world's greatest car hater, never having driven a car himself.
2007-12-09 00:22:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by clovernut 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Geeze... it's not like they pick a random person off of the street and chop their head off.. I suppose that the cop killer in Philadelphia is a saint sent to redeem the world. No.. I am not against the death penalty...
2007-12-08 23:53:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by lordkelvin 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
1. Are you asking about the Death Penalty?
2. Why do you ASSUME I am against whatever you meant to ask about? (I am FOR the death penalty).
3. Christmas has NOTHING to do with supporting or opposing ANY position on punishing criminals.
4. If you ask a coherent question, I MAY have a coherent position to argue.
2007-12-08 23:54:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
When you say " penalty charge", it seems you're referring to parking. I guess, though, you're actually referring to the death penalty. What makes you think we're against it?
2007-12-08 23:59:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by champer 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
If people commit crimes, they should be prepared to pay the penalty.
2007-12-08 23:51:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by fuck off 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
IT'S GOD LAW THOU SHALL LOVE
NOT HATE
WALK AND SEE MY LIGHT
KNOW WHO YOU ARE
AND THOU SHALL NOT KILL
DO GOOD DEEDS TO OTHERS.
OK I DIDN'T SAY THAT IT WAS THE BIG GUY UP THERE.
2007-12-09 10:15:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Need someone to flick the switch?
I'm your man.
2007-12-08 23:55:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
if you cant do time dont do crime
2007-12-09 00:47:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋