What are your feelings on the Death Penalty?

Question

I think it is immoral and wrong. Who gave us the right to play God and play with life like that?

My cousin was raped and murdered in Philadelphia when I was 13. I don't want the creep who killed her to go free, but killing him won't bring her back. It cost more per year to keep a prisioner on death row than it does to keep 3 prisioners on maximum security, so it is not helping our taxes.

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

The death penalty should be used for "cruel & unusual" crimes, serial killers and the string of cops that seem to keep murdering their girlfriends/wives, when there is no doubt as to their guilt.

It's not about wanting to "get back" at someone, it's about protecting our society and not wasting our precious tax dollars on someone who can't be released or rehabilitated.

Yes, you could argue that the punishment itself is cruel & unusual, but in some cases, it is a necessary evil.

In the US it costs roughly $26,000 a year to keep 1 prisoner alive in prison. Not adjusting for inflation, which would make it worse, if someone stays in prison for life, from age 25-85, that costs us 1.3 million dollars, just for that one person.

If they committed truly heinous crimes, beyond a shadow of a doubt (think Jeffrey Dahmer types) where there is no way we would ever let them out, and rehabilitation is out of the question, do us all a favor and use that 1.3 million to do something good in the world.

Yes, I'm sure some innocent people have been killed by accident. By if you examine their "innocence" you often see those individuals are far from being upstanding members of society. Not that they deserved death, but usually they are lowlifes who have committed many other crimes and/or were associated with the actual killer. A necessary risk in my mind.

The biggest need for change in the Death Penalty is how quickly we apply it. It should happen within 6 months of their conviction if there is irrefutable proof.

Answer 3

i might think of that the dimensions of time on loss of life row has lots to do with the appelate technique. the different pertinent situation is the state the place the crime occurs. whilst became the final time somebody became finished in CA? what number executions in line with 12 months? If Ramirez became convicted in TX he'd be lifeless and long previous a protracted time in the past. i don't be attentive to if the loss of life penalty could properly be a deterrent, yet i'm pondering it. as quickly as lifeless it fairly is not uncomplicated to be a repeat criminal.

Answer 4

Well, the Death Penalty was around a long time before you and me. Ever thought about how a chain of events occurs to somehow cause our existence? The "butterfly effect?" You go back in time and accidently step on a butterfly and it causes an exponential but direct chain of events that eventually wipes out all of life as we know it?
Perhaps it is the 'elimination" of the Death Penalty that will eventually, ironically, contribute to our own demise.

Answer 5

Well, since you asked...

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

Genesis 9:6


But if you want my feelings, I believe some crimes deserve death, but it can't be done at the expense of the innocent.

If we are going to keep the death penalty, I feel we should make the burden of proof much higher than it already is.

But, the way it is instituted now allows for too many errors.

I will not accept punishing the guilty at the expense of the innocent.

Answer 6

It is not immoral. The Bible says, "Whosoever sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Exodus somewhere. The Bible explicitly states that a murderer is to be executed. And by the way, I'm sorry for your cousin. My prayers are with you.

Answer 7

don't have to worry about repeat offenders with the death penalty. i don't know about you but i am tired of our kids being raped and killed by people that have been in and out of prison all of their lives.

Answer 8

You ask the question "Who should we, as a town or society, kill of our fellow citizens if they do wrong by our laws?"
Why and whom should we kill?
I suggest that we should have a death penalty only for people who threaten the existence of of our socierty.

Answer 9

murderers, rapists and child molesters should get the death penalty. No repeat offenders!

Answer 10

i agree...but i would much rather make some one suffer for the rest of their life in prison than let them off scott free by dieing