Do convicted murderers deserve life?

Question

I am pro-death penalty. Taxpayer money should not go to house, clothe, and feed hardened criminals. They only deserve swift justice of death. What do you all think?

Answer 1

It depends on the crime. The case here in Louisiana where a father killed the priest who molested his son certainly doesn't deserve the death penalty. But, I do feel the priest did, although it wasn't the father's responsibility to carry out the sentence. Good luck. 2D

Answer 2

I am of mixed feelings.

Where there is no doubt because of both physical evidence and multiple, independent eyewitness testimony, and particularly where multiple murder is involved, I say it is time to save the taxpayers some money.

Where there is some doubt about the details of the case, then I am not so sure that the death penalty is the right answer.

It comes down to this: Society should - and does - have the right to take someone out of that society permanently. This can be done via death penalty - but life with no pardon, parole, or commutation would also have that effect. So, if you are going to throw the full weight of your government after someone, you owe it to them AND to the other citizens that when you do that, you dot every i and cross every t in the process of assuring that you 've got the right person. If you cannot connect all the dots completely, if there are grounds for some doubt about the details... don't take that last step. It cheapens the power of the government by making life too cheap.

Answer 3

After witnessing our corrupt court system first hand and how people are forced to plea bargain and admit guilt or face bankrupting their families I don't know anymore about the death penalty. If only it couldn't really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then I would say yes for those people only. Look up on the internet when you have a chance of all the ethics charges being brought against prosecuting attorneys who only care about getting a conviction behind their belt. Forced false confessions are being inflicted on children now, prosecutors are aware of this yet some still play to destroy lives and if a person doesn't give up out of schere loss of will they are forced to give up financially.

Answer 4

Hmmm, this is a really tough one... I agree with you to the extent that if someone is convicted of murder, they shouldn't be "treated" to 'housing', food, clothing and good medical care. I resent that, as well, and believe if they are on death row, it should be carried out within a year. I have seen cases, where people were freed once later proven innocent, and I do know that our legal system isn't always fair. I know that some people are convicted of crimes they haven't committed, but if someone freely confesses & it's particularly brutal, (like child killing) or if the DNA DOES convict, get it over NOW. When it's a COST issue, free those convicted of minor crimes (like marijuana possession, or burglary or non-violent crimes) and leave violent offenders in....

Answer 5

People convicted of any crime should be forced to work to pay off their stay in prison. Rather than tax payers giving their money to allow the people that have wronged them to get three meals a day, and a roof over their heads. However as Gandhi once said "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind." If we kill everyone that has been convicted of murder we risk killing innocent people wrongly convicted. But if a case has definite evidence that could not be tampered with then it would be better for them to die.

Answer 6

We've got too many flaws in the system to justify it as of yet. I believe in the death penalty only to enforce the rules in prison. Here there's no doubt as to who did what and to whom. Execute the trouble makers and the rest will fall in line. There will no longer be a need for expensive isolation facilities.

Bad enough we have to support convicted killers but when they continue killing because they simply have nothing to loose or to build a reputation that goes over the line.

As for tax payer money put the convicts to work farming and building roads like they used to.

Answer 7

Yes, but only if it is applied for all murders. The reason that many people think the death penalty does not work as a deterrent to crime is because it is not applied uniformly. Maybe we can't execute all murderers, but if there was some kind of consistency to it, it would be more effective.

Answer 8

He should get death but perhaps Life in prison would be more Hell for him. I also feel that there are more People involved in this Murder than just Roeder. He reminds me of the Suicide Bombers. Some group stirs up hatred to the ultimate degree and some disturbed individual takes the bait. I also found it very interesting that he mentioned D&Cs. Thas has been the name for the treatment when the term abortion was not acceptable to either the doctor or the Hospital in which it took place. I also would like to know how many poor families he personally took care of. I bet his answer would be that he had other urgent things to take care of and that of course involved Murder.

Answer 9

The death penalty is actually much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

Answer 10

I think that if you want to make the issue about money then you as taking the wrong side of the issue. it cost considerably more to prosecute a death penalty case and to house the prisoner until (and if) the execution happens.

Want to save money? Go for life with no parole.