should the death penalty be abolished?

Answer 1

NO. Also, they should bring back public hangings.

Answer 2

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 on the basis of sound bites or without answers to these concerns.

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 3

I don't believe that the death penalty should be abolished. It still serves a vital purpose. While studies have shown it is not an effective deterrent, it is safe to assume it has deterred some criminal from committing a crime. Besides being an ineffective deterrent, it serves a purpose of punishment. The most important aspect of the death penalty could be that it brings closure for those victims and victims families who have been victimized by the worst of the criminals.

And, as someone said earlier, No one has ever been a repeat offender once they served their death sentence.

Answer 4

Well I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Many people would argue that no one has the right to take away the life of a human being, no matter what they have done in life. Some people also say that by killing them, their suffering has been ended and therefore they have not been punished fully.

Then again there is the argument that by not sentencing these people to death they will still be around to commit crimes, and that they will never truly feel suffering until they are aware of their impending death. And that the prisons are overpopulated with these types of people who will never stop commiting crime.

I see something in all of these points.

Answer 5

why should the public support these people, educate, give free medical care for the rest of their life? the death penalty is a deterant. the 2 types of deterance is specific and general. you never know about the general side because it takes 25 yrs to carry out the death process. the specific side works because the criminal is dead. every governor should sign a death warrent for every death row inmate at his or her accepting the office

Answer 6

As much as I like criminals getting what they deserve it serves no purpose deterring them from commiting crimes, it just fuels them to not be caught. And as for clearing our overcrowded prisons some inmates have been and are still on death row.

Answer 7

NOOO... if you kill someone you get killed back... i am all for eye for an eye tooth for a tooth...

and M M... if people werent so stuck on stuff being ethical... it could be done for less than a dollar... i would gladly give my 30-30 to the person who is man enough to kill someone... heck ill do it myself... a box of 20 rounds is about 12 bucks... so a lil over 50 cents a person

Answer 8

No, it should not be abolished. It may not be a deterrent, but after it is administered, there are very few repeat offenders.

Answer 9

If you murder a man you get killed. Honestly I think for those hard violent criminals they should torture them till they die instead of ending their life to quickly. Sounds a bit harsh but would you commit that crime if that was the punishment? Hell no.

Answer 10

It's more expensive than life in prison and study after study has showed that it isn't a deterrent. Plus it is out of line with Jesus's teachings.

Answer 11

Nope.

Nothing like a barbecue to get criminal's attention.