Your opinions on the death penalty?

Question

I am currently writing a paper for my english class conserning the death penatly, and I would love to hear your opinon.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

There are 2 motives for opposing the loss of existence penalty which maximum persons of the united kingdom inhabitants agree on, which improve into why the loss of existence penalty improve into abolished in 1998. they're: a million. Inhumanity. that's imposssible for a state to homicide somebody and look after the ethical 'severe floor' 2. Miscarriage of justice: if some thing is going incorrect, and it does bypass incorrect in capital circumstances, the guy who's carried out cant come back.

Answer 3

The reason people might see the death penalty as a good thing are only thinking of revenge for themselves or people the criminal may have hurt- which is completely human. However, think about it this way- let's say this horrible man tortured a child, and is nowsitting in jail, would you rather end his life, so he has no chance to even have any remorse, or guilt about it? Or would you rather let him rot in a cell doing 3 lifetime sentences, wasting his life away, with the thought of hell and all the horrible things he's done brewing around in his head? I think the latter is the better punishment. It's not our job to take people's lives, but it is our job to set some kind of justice. Let him rot in a cell rather then end his life, which is what he probably wants anyway.

Answer 4

If the murderer confessed and or there was absolutely cement sure that the person did the crime, I would say it is fair. A life for a life, the only problem is how sure the conviction was. was there circumstantial evidence? Was there a reliable witness? Was there a crummy alibi? So many people in Texas have gone to their death in that death machine state. When I first suspected Bush of being a moron was when he said "I don't think any innocent person was put to death by mistake"

With Bush he is willing to bet other peoples lives, that he is correct. Just like he is in Iraq. He's betting with other people's sons, daughters, nieces and nephew

Too bad he can't put his money where his mouth is.

Answer 5

Someone sentenced to the death penalty can really bog down the legal system and waste tax dollars with appeals. I understand some people think that there are certain crimes for which the criminal should be put to death, and I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but it seems like a big waste of money, when keeping them in prison for life without parole is sometimes cheaper to all of us. Especially if the person is guilty as hell, the last thing I would want to do is give him more of our money, when it could be better spent elsewhere.

And I'm really tired of hearing that people aren't responsible for their own behavior because bad stuff happened to them.

Answer 6

My opinion is that it will continue to be a part of our society and law indefinitely into the future. Neither side of this controversy is likely to "win." This is an example of why:

I have opined against death penalty before. I have thought it to be archaic, reactionary, and ultimately not useful. For example, if it were a significant or effective deterrent, why do people continue to commit crimes that warrant the punishment? I think the previous response is partially right, in that societal problems contribute to the decisions of some people to commit crimes, and that they cannot be purely blamed for their wrongdoings.

Recently, however, my girlfriend's friend was murdered in her own home by two random robbers looking for things to sell for drug money. That helps me see the other side, which is that there is something deeply troubling about the idea of a system that preserves the life of those who senselessly take it from others.

Answer 7

I don't agree with it. There are many reasons why, but one of them is that I feel it's the easy way out. What is worse for a person - to get drugged and die, or to spend the rest of their life in prison? I wholeheartedly believe that spending life in prison is a worse punishment than death, and think that any family pushing for the death of someone who wronged them to really think about it. Killing the person will not bring any 'closure' to a situation, or make things right. However, knowing the person is going to spend the rest of their life in jail should me more comforting.

And I am also very against the conditions of our jails. The people in jail have better standards of living than probably 25% of our country, which is ridiculous. The people in jail get luxuries that others would only dream of - cable t.v., air conditioning, 3 meals a day.... I've heard of people who commit crimes just so they can get in jail for those things. Jail should be a place so horrible, they will never do anything to get them put back in there.

That's my 23.5 cents worth :)

Answer 8

I feel that people (if you want to call them that) who rape, torture and murder people for sexual or other kicks...such as brutal serial killers...should be beaten to within an inch of their lives...once for every victim. Then, they should be fed just enough to be kept alive to work until they sweat blood. They should be beaten severely every day thereafter and worked until they cannot stand up. Just my opinion. Death penalty is way too easy.

Answer 9

A death penalty is needed in todays society. First, because you know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. If a serial killer kills 10 people should they really be allowed to live? Yes, they would be in jail for life, but they would still be alive unlike their victims. What goes around comes around.

EDIT: In the state where I live it costs $100,000/year to sustain one prisoner. Why should tax payers pay for a murderer to rot in prison would you could just give them the death penalty.

Answer 10

i oppose the death penalty.

i dont believe it acts a s a deterrent for crime and in many cases is the easy way out for many criminals. i would rather see them suffer in prison

however this costs money, and increases risk of violence in prisons

but punishing someone for murder, by taking their life is a total contradiction